Oral
Answers to
Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Brexit: Devolution

Chris Elmore: What discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.

David Mundell: The Government have intensified their discussions with the Scottish and Welsh Governments on both the significant increase in powers that we expect to see for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly and some common UK frameworks following the UK’s EU exit. We are making good progress in those discussions and will meet again tomorrow for the next Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations, at which I hope further progress can be made.

Chris Elmore: The Secretary of State and fellow Scottish Conservatives say that clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is deficient. He gave an undertaking to this House that he would table amendments, which he failed to do. He now says that he will deliver amendments in the other place, which he still has not done. Will he set out what happens if he runs out of time to deliver his much-promised amendments?

David Mundell: I am confident that we will be able to bring forward such amendments. We are in significant discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Government, which both acknowledge that we have tabled to them a significant proposal for changing the Bill. I hope to hear their detailed response to that tomorrow.

Bob Blackman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government’s wish that as powers are returned from Brussels to the UK they will be devolved, not only to Scotland but to Wales and Northern Ireland?

David Mundell: Yes, indeed; that is the Government’s wish, although we acknowledge that to make the common market within the UK function effectively, some powers and responsibilities will have to be conducted at a UK-wide level.

Ian Murray: Will the Secretary of State set out for the House the mechanism he will use to amend clause 11 of the EU withdrawal Bill, should no agreement be in place by the time the Bill completes its passage in the other place?

David Mundell: I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s pessimism that there will not be agreement before the Bill completes its passage in the other place. I remain positive about being able to reach an agreement with both the Welsh and Scottish Governments. I believe that they are sincere in their expressed view that they wish to reach such an agreement, and we will take every step to ensure that we negotiate to a position at which we can reach an agreement.

Ross Thomson: Leaving the EU means taking back control of our waters, which is a huge opportunity for Scotland’s fishermen. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Government’s EU continuity Bill and stated position of remaining in the single market and customs union would simply sell out Scotland’s fishermen by handing all those new powers straight back to Brussels?

David Mundell: It is incredible that that is indeed the position of the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government. Although at one point SNP Members came to this House and talked about a power grab, they are now willing and want to hand back powers over fishing to the EU right away and to go back into the common fisheries policy.

Tommy Sheppard: Will the Secretary of State explain why, if he believes that Brexit is going to have a profound effect on the devolution settlement, he was excluded from the recent meeting of his Cabinet colleagues at Chequers to formulate the UK’s Brexit strategy?

David Mundell: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise the result of the 2014 referendum and therefore that the UK Government Cabinet is a Cabinet for the whole United Kingdom, as are all its sub-committees. The decisions on the Prime Minister’s approach to the EU negotiations were agreed by the whole Cabinet.

John Bercow: I call Lesley Laird.

Tommy Sheppard: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Was the hon. Gentleman planning to come in again? He has had one question.

Tommy Sheppard: I thought I had two.

John Bercow: There was no indication that the hon. Gentleman was seeking two. In an hour-long session, yes, but not otherwise. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman’s brow is furrowed; he has got what was his entitlement and has nothing about which to complain, so he can sit down and we are most grateful to him for doing so.

Lesley Laird: The Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and promised the House that the devolution settlement would  be protected. Three months on, we are facing a constitutional crisis. What exactly is the Secretary of State doing to fix the mess he has made of the EU withdrawal Bill?

David Mundell: I will not take any lessons from the hon. Lady whose party was quite prepared to play the SNP game in the Scottish Parliament and vote for a piece of legislation that was quite clearly ruled as not competent by the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.

John Bercow: Good communication is very important in these matters. My office was notified of the intention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) to ask a question, which he has asked. If he wants to ask a second, so be it, but he should not be flailing and gesticulating as though he has been the subject of some sort of adverse treatment, because he has not. If he wants to get up and blurt out a second question, he is most welcome to do so. Let’s hear from the fellow. Come on!

Tommy Sheppard: Thank you, Mr Speaker—I did want to ask the Secretary of State a second question. He has previously said that the most important thing about changes to the withdrawal Bill is that they should command the support of all sides. May I ask him: is that still his policy, and does he believe that any framework arrangements should require the consent of the Scottish Parliament if it changes its operations?

David Mundell: I have set out clearly that, in the process of leaving the EU, I want to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has more powers and responsibilities than it does today. I also want to ensure that we have an arrangement in place to allow us to agree frameworks as we move forward, and that frameworks, as I have previously said, should not be imposed.

John Bercow: These exchanges are far too slow. We need short questions and short answers. I want to make progress. Lesley Laird, a couple of brief inquiries, please.

Lesley Laird: My party is the party of devolution, and we will continue to protect that. We are 20 months on from the EU referendum, and a year away from leaving the EU, and yet Scotland’s invisible man in the Cabinet cannot even blag himself an invite to the awayday at Chequers to discuss Brexit. Does the Secretary of State have a plan to fix this mess, or will he continue to front up a Government who are trampling all over the devolution settlement for Scotland?

David Mundell: The Scottish Labour party will be judged on its actions, and I do not see it standing up for the devolution settlement in the Scottish Parliament. Instead, I see it kowtowing to the SNP. In relation to devolution and commitment to the United Kingdom, the hon. Lady, above all people, should know that we have a United Kingdom Cabinet, a United Kingdom Chancellor, and a United Kingdom Prime Minister. Again, she should not kowtow to SNP arguments about separatism—

John Bercow: We are most grateful. I call Tonia Antoniazzi.

RBS Branch Closures

Tonia Antoniazzi: What discussions he has had with the Royal Bank of Scotland on the potential effect on local communities of the proposed closure of its branches in Scotland.

David Mundell: I have met senior RBS management in Scotland to discuss the decision. I made it clear that its plans were disappointing for customers and communities across Scotland, and I urged it to mitigate the impact of closures as comprehensively as possible.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Small businesses have already reported in Wales and across the United Kingdom that they are being refused if they try to pay in large sums of cash at the post office, as it presents a security risk and post office workers do not have the time to count such large sums of money. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that there is no disruption to small businesses or the public as a result of these ill-thought-out closures?

David Mundell: I certainly share the hon. Lady’s view that these are ill-thought-out closures, and I am very happy to take the specific point forward. I am sure that colleagues who serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee will also be prepared to put that view to the chief executive of the Royal Bank, who, I am pleased to say, has finally agreed to appear before that Committee.

John Lamont: The big issue for many rural communities, such as those in my constituency in the borders, will be the access to cash given that RBS is shutting so many branches on the back of previous bank closures. Can the Government do more to ensure that rural communities are getting access to the cash to support the local economies?

David Mundell: My hon. Friend raises a very good point. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss that issue further.

Jamie Stone: The decline in the centres of our Scottish towns is there to be seen. The closure of the branch of the Royal Bank will be a further nail in the coffin. What proposals does the Secretary of State have to try to arrest the decline of our vital little towns in Scotland?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman raises a very pertinent point; the vast majority of these proposed closures, for example, are related to rural communities. We must focus on ensuring that people in rural areas can continue to receive services. There is the issue of cash, which my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) has just raised, and also things such as broadband, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we want the Scottish Government to roll out more quickly.

Pete Wishart: It has been the custom since 2015 that the SNP lead spokesperson gets two questions at Scottish questions.
The Scottish Secretary is obviously very much aware of the Scottish Affairs Committee’s ongoing inquiry into RBS closures. CEO Ross McEwan has now agreed to appear before the Committee. Bizarrely, the only people who will not go in front of the Committee are UK Government Treasury Ministers, even though they have a 70% share in our interest in that bank. Can he therefore join me in—

John Bercow: Order. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I need no advice on procedure from him or any of his colleagues. I work on the basis of that of which the office has been notified—one question, and that was why I granted it. I am well familiar with the precedents; I know what I am doing, but I do require effective communication, which was lacking in this case. It is not appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to use his position to try to score some procedural point, which he has spectacularly failed to do.

David Mundell: My Treasury colleagues will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

Paul Sweeney: On 6 February, RBS announced that it would give 10 branches in Scotland a stay of execution, on the basis that they were the last bank in town. However, one branch, in the Secretary of State’s constituency, was given a special reprieve but was not the last bank in town. Why should the Secretary of State’s constituents be given preferential treatment while the last banks in some of the poorest communities across Scotland are closed down?

David Mundell: I know that this is a hostage to fortune, but I would like the hon. Gentleman to name that branch, because the three branches in my constituency that were to be the subject of this so-called reprieve—which I agree with him is just a stay of execution—are all the last bank in town. I think he should do his research a little better.

Referendum on Independence

David Davies: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on holding a further independence referendum.

David Mundell: Scotland held a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014—a “once in a generation” event, we were told—and the result was decisive. Now is not the time for a second independence referendum. Our entire focus should be on pulling together during negotiations with the European Union, making sure we get the best deal for the whole of the UK.

David Davies: I entirely agree, but if by some chance the Scottish Government do manage to have another referendum, on leaving the single market and the customs union which they share with the rest of the United Kingdom, will my right hon. Friend show it more respect than they are currently showing to the 17.6 million people across the UK who voted for Brexit?

David Mundell: Not surprisingly, I agree with my hon. Friend. He will be particularly aware that 1 million people in Scotland—most of them SNP voters—who voted to leave the EU have been airbrushed out of  history; they do not exist. If one listens to the our First Minister, apparently everybody in Scotland voted to remain in the EU.

John Bercow: Order. We must focus on the independence referendum, not on the European Union.

Deidre Brock: Does the Secretary of State not think that, once we have clarity on what Brexit will really mean for the people of Scotland, it is right for them to decide their future, and that it is not for Westminster politicians to stop people making a decision?

David Mundell: We had an independence referendum in 2014. The outcome was decisive. We were told ahead of that referendum that it was to be a “once in a generation”—indeed, once in a lifetime—event, and that is what it should be.

City Deals

Paul Masterton: What progress the Government have made on their deal for every city in Scotland.

Luke Graham: What progress the Government have made on their plans to deliver a city deal for every city in Scotland.

David Mundell: The UK Government are either negotiating or implementing a city region deal for all of Scotland’s seven great cities and the regions around them. So far we have committed over £1 billion to this landmark programme, and there is more to come. We are currently negotiating with local partners for both the Stirling and Clackmannanshire and Tay cities deals, and we hope to conclude the heads of agreements in the coming months.

Paul Masterton: The Secretary of State will be aware that a number of the projects associated with the Glasgow region city deal, including two taking place in East Renfrewshire, are over budget and behind schedule. Does he agree that it is vital that we get to work on these projects as soon as possible, so that local communities can benefit?

David Mundell: I do agree with my hon. Friend about raising those issues with the Glasgow city deal. It is not enough just to sign these deals and to promote them; what we need is delivery, and I will look at the specific issues he has raised.

Luke Graham: Will my right hon. Friend help to break the deadlock with the devolved Administration and commit to the amount of money that Westminster is willing to put forward in the Stirling and Clackmannanshire deal, so that Clackmannanshire can realise its true ambition?

David Mundell: My hon. Friend has certainly been a strong advocate for Clackmannanshire in this process. I hope to meet the Scottish Government shortly to discuss both this deal and the Tay cities deal, in the hope that the Scottish Government and the UK Government can go forward with local partners in a collaborative way.

Patricia Gibson: Does the Secretary of State share my frustration at the lack of progress on the Ayrshire growth deal? Does he agree that it is time to get on and kick-start the deal for all the people of Ayrshire?

David Mundell: Yes I do.

Alan Brown: Further to that question, will the Secretary of State give us a timeline for when the UK Government will agree the Ayrshire growth deal?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman’s constant flow of negativity is in marked contrast to the three local authorities that I met recently in Ayrshire, which are very keen to work with the Scottish Government and the UK Government to make the Ayrshire growth deal a reality.

Leaving the EU

Hannah Bardell: What recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the EU.

Stephen Gethins: What recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the EU.

Mhairi Black: What recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the EU.

David Mundell: As Members would expect, I have very regular discussions with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet regarding UK Government policy and how it affects Scotland. The UK Government are committed to securing a deal that works for all parts of the UK, including Scotland.

Hannah Bardell: Has the Secretary of State just given up on getting the consent of the Scottish Parliament for any changes to its powers on the devolved settlement that this Tory Government plan to make, or is he so out of the loop that he no longer gets invited to Cabinet meetings and has quite simply become an irrelevance?

David Mundell: I do not know who briefs the hon. Lady, but the joint ministerial council for EU negotiations is meeting tomorrow. We are meeting with Mike Russell and Mark Drakeford, and we hope to take forward the solid progress that we have achieved over the course of these meetings.

Stephen Gethins: One area where the Scottish and UK Governments appear to agree is that plans to take us out of the single market will be devastating for Scotland’s GDP, so can he tell us what plans he has to protect public services in Scotland from that?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman usually takes his brief with great seriousness, and therefore I am sure that he will have read the Prime Minister’s speech, if not watched it last week, which set out how the UK Government will approach the negotiations.

Mhairi Black: We have seen the Secretary of State go back on his words about the single market and have his authority undermined by not being invited to the PM’s Brexit meeting, and we are still waiting for his amendments to the withdrawal Bill. Given that the deadline is next Thursday, will this be just another catalogue of failures for the Secretary of State?

David Mundell: I would be very pleased if, after tomorrow’s meeting of the JMCEN, we are able to bring forward an agreed amendment that can be tabled in the House of Lords. That is certainly the aspiration of the UK Government.

David Duguid: Last week, the Prime Minister met me and colleagues from our fishing constituencies around the UK, including Scotland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the meeting highlighted how this Government are serious about realising the opportunity presented by Brexit, and reminded us that only this Government will take us out of the common fisheries policy?

David Mundell: Absolutely. Since his election to this place last year, my hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate for the fishing industry and the expressed wish of the fishing industry to leave the common fisheries policy, and that is what this Government will deliver for the fishing industry in Scotland.

Tom Pursglove: My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the enormous benefits that Brexit potentially provides for the Scottish economy, as part of one United Kingdom, but does he also agree with Corby Scots—Scots in my constituency—that the talk of an unwanted second independence referendum far outweighs any risk that Brexit might present?

David Mundell: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that talk of a second independence referendum is unwelcome and unnecessary. We have reached the point in the negotiations where we all need to come together and work with the Prime Minister to get the best possible deal for Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom.

Alistair Carmichael: What progress is being made on ensuring that Scotland’s food producers will still have the protection that they need for important geographic brands such as Orkney beef or Shetland lamb after we have left the European Union?

David Mundell: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, despite scare stories to the contrary that have appeared in some parts of the media, there will be no change to the protection of those brands or an allowing in of false brands purporting to be them.

Martin Whitfield: Non-UK nationals are essential to the agricultural industry in East Lothian. Can the Secretary of State guarantee  that they will still have the same access after we leave  the EU?

David Mundell: I very much welcomed the debate in this Parliament on that issue, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) who has been a strong advocate of the need for seasonal workers in  Scotland, particularly in the soft fruit industry. The points raised in that debate and in the meetings of the Scottish Affairs Committee have all been recognised by the Government and will be looked at as we move forward.

Stirling and Clackmannanshire City Region Deal

Stephen Kerr: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal.

David Mundell: My colleague the noble Lord Duncan met with partners recently at the Forth Valley College, and I have met Cabinet Secretary Keith Brown to discuss the Scottish contribution to the deal. I hope to meet Mr Brown again shortly.

Stephen Kerr: It sometimes feels that the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city deal is taking longer to deliver than a baby elephant at Blair Drummond safari park. When does the Secretary of State expect to sign a heads of agreement with the Scottish Government and the local authorities? What discussions has he had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the future use of the Ministry of Defence site at Forthside in the city deal? [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I want to hear the answer, to hear whether the Secretary of State is widening it beyond Stirling and Clackmannanshire or not.

David Mundell: We hope to sign that deal soon. The Ministry of Defence intends to dispose of Forthside by 2020, under the better defence estate strategy. We are working with the MOD to look at how the site can be part of that city deal.

Stewart Hosie: rose—

John Bercow: I will give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt, but he must not shoehorn his own constituency into the matter. Let’s hear it.

Stewart Hosie: The Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal does indeed include the transfer of MOD land at Forthside, and the decontamination of that land, to Stirling Council. I understand that that is no longer going to happen. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether it will happen and when will it happen, or is it yet another broken Tory promise?

David Mundell: How disappointing to allow that negative note into proceedings on city deals. City deals have worked because they have been a positive collaboration between the UK Government, Scottish Government, local authorities and partners, and it is exactly that sort of negativity and politicking that undermines the whole process.

John Bercow: It may be negative, but at least it was definitely orderly.

Scottish Economy

Gerard Killen: What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the Scottish economy.

Stuart Andrew: The latest officialfigures show that the Scottish economy is growing, but at a slower pace than we would like and continuing to lag behind the UK. The UK Government are delivering for Scotland, including with our UK-wide industrial strategy, and of course with £2 billion of extra spending for Scotland, but the Scottish Government hold many of the levers that could drive growth, and they should be using those to make sure Scotland becomes a competitive place to do business. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I understand the sense of anticipation in the House, but we are discussing the strength of the Scottish economy, in which colleagues should take a polite and respectful interest.

Gerard Killen: The Secretary of State will be aware of the proposed closure of the 2 Sisters chicken plant in my constituency, with 450 jobs at risk. Will he join me in calling on the Scottish Government to set up a taskforce to look at viable alternatives? Will he agree to meet me to set out any help the UK Government might be able to offer?

Stuart Andrew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and yes, absolutely; the Secretary of State and I were talking about this this morning. He is more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and will raise the issue with the Scottish Government on his behalf.

John Stevenson: The success of the economy of the south of Scotland is clearly linked to that of the economy of the north of England, particularly my constituency of Carlisle. Does the Minister agree that the borderlands initiative is an exciting opportunity for both sides of the border to boost economic growth?

Stuart Andrew: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are of course bringing about growth deals all over the country, and we also need to look at those areas where we can have them across borders, so we completely welcome the project he talks about.

John Bercow: I call the hon. Gentleman’s namesake, Stuart C. McDonald.

Stuart McDonald: Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss the potentially disastrous consequences for workers in and the community of Cumbernauld if the proposed closure of the tax office there is allowed to proceed?

Stuart Andrew: Yes.

John Bercow: Finally, I call Toby Perkins.

ATP Tennis Tournament

Toby Perkins: If he will make it his policy to work with the Scottish Government and the Lawn Tennis Association on hosting an ATP World Tour tennis tournament in Scotland.

Stuart Andrew: We know your interest in tennis, Mr Speaker. The success of Andy Murray in the singles,   Jamie Murray in the doubles and Gordon Reid in the wheelchair event has undoubtedly increased interest in tennis in Scotland. We would certainly support measures that encourage more people to engage with tennis and, indeed, any sport in Scotland.

Toby Perkins: I am very encouraged to hear that. As we look towards the legacy of Andy Murray, the greatest British tennis player ever, it would be great to see the UK Government, the Scottish Government and perhaps even Glasgow City Council working together with the Lawn Tennis Association to make a profitable tennis tournament at ATP elite level.

Stuart Andrew: Indeed; Scotland has been a great venue for tennis. The Scottish Government actually lead on this. It would be welcome to hear anything from the Scottish Government, and we would be more than happy to meet them to discuss the situation.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Simon Hoare: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 7 March.

Theresa May: I would like to begin by updating the House on the Government’s response to the incident that occurred in Salisbury on Sunday. I pay tribute to the work of all the emergency services who responded at the scene, and those who are now caring for the two critically ill individuals in hospital. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House yesterday, the police investigation is ongoing. Yesterday afternoon, I chaired a meeting of the National Security Council, where we were updated on that investigation, which is now being led by counter-terrorism police. This morning, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary chaired a meeting of the Government’s emergency committee, Cobra, and she has asked the police to provide an update later today.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Simon Hoare: Representing a south-west constituency, may I align my remarks with those of my right hon. Friend? The incident in Salisbury has clearly caused great concern across the south-west and, of course, the country.
North Dorset’s councils and I share the Prime Minister’s commitment to delivering new housing, such as the 1,800 new homes proposed for Gillingham in my constituency. We understand how housing transforms lives and supports local economic growth. May I welcome this week’s announcement from the Prime Minister? Let us get Britain building and deliver those quality homes of all tenures that our constituents now need.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of housing. Earlier this week, I confirmed that the Government are rewriting the rules on planning to help restore the dream of home ownership. We want to see planning permissions going to people who are actually going to build houses, not   just sit on land and watch its value rise. Our new rules will also make sure that the right infrastructure is in place to support housing developments, and planning changes will also allow more affordable homes to be prioritised for key workers. The Government have made it a priority to build the homes people need so that everyone can afford a safe and decent place to live.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for the short statement she made concerning the incident in Salisbury. I think we all thank the emergency and security services for their response, and we await updates on the progress of investigations into the cause of that incident.
Tomorrow is International Women’s Day—a chance both to celebrate how far we have come on equality for women but also to reflect on how far we have to go, not just in this country but around the world.
Later today, the Prime Minister is due to meet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the ruler of Saudi Arabia. Despite much talk of reform, there has been a sharp increase in the arrest and detention of dissidents, torture of prisoners is common, human rights defenders are routinely sentenced to lengthy prison terms, and unfair trials and executions are widespread, as Amnesty International confirms. As she makes her arms sales pitch, will she also call on the Crown Prince to halt the shocking abuse of human rights in Saudi Arabia?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for telling me that it is International Women’s Day tomorrow. I think that is what is called mansplaining.
I look forward to welcoming Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman from Saudi Arabia to this—[Hon. Members: “Shame on you!”] Labour Back Benchers are shouting “Shame” from a sedentary position. I say to those Back Benchers that the link we have with Saudi Arabia is historic and important, and has potentially saved the lives of hundreds of people in this country. The fact that it is an important link is not just a view that I hold. The shadow Foreign Secretary said this morning:
“Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is an important one”.
She went on to say:
“that doesn’t mean that we should be pulling our punches.”
I agree, which is why I will be raising concerns about human rights with the Crown Prince when I meet him.
As the right hon. Gentleman started on the issue of International Women’s Day, I welcome the fact that the Crown Prince will be sitting down with, as the guest of, a female Prime Minister.

Jeremy Corbyn: A year on, the Government are still suppressing a report on the funding of extremism, which allegedly found evidence of Saudi funding going to terrorist groups here in the UK, thus threatening our security. When will that report come out?
A humanitarian disaster is now taking place in Yemen. Millions face starvation and 600,000 children have cholera because of the Saudi-led bombing campaign and the blockade—600,000 children with cholera is something that everyone in this House should take seriously. Germany has suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia, but British arms sales have increased sharply and British military advisers are directing the war. It cannot be right that the right hon. Lady’s Government are colluding in what  the United Nations says is evidence of war crimes. Will the Prime Minister use her meeting with the Crown Prince today to halt the arms supplies and demand an immediate ceasefire in Yemen?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman raised two questions. On the first point about the Home Office’s internal review, the Government are committed to stamping out extremism in all its forms. When I was Home Secretary, I launched the counter-extremism strategy. My right hon. Friend the current Home Secretary has appointed our counter-extremism commissioner. The review gave us the best picture of how extremists operating in the UK sustain their activities and improved our understanding of that. Its most important finding was that, contrary to popular perception, Islamist extremists draw most of their financial support from domestic, rather than overseas, sources.
I understand that because of some of the personal content in the report, it has not been published. However, Privy Counsellors have been invited to go to the Home Office to read the report. That invitation was extended, I believe, to the shadow Home Secretary, so she and other Privy Council colleagues on the Labour Front Bench are free to go and read the report.
The second issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised was the humanitarian situation in Yemen. We are all concerned about the appalling humanitarian situation in Yemen and the effect that it is having on people, particularly women and children. That is why the Government have increased our funding for Yemen. For 2017-18, we increased it to over £200 million. We are the third largest humanitarian donor to Yemen. We are delivering life-saving aid that will provide nutrition support for 1.7 million people and clean water for 1.2 million people.
I was pleased that when I went to Saudi Arabia in December I met the Crown Prince, and raised with him the need to open the port of Hodeidah to humanitarian and commercial supplies. I am pleased to say that Saudi Arabia then did just that. This vindicates the engagement that we have with Saudi Arabia and the ability to sit down with them. Their involvement in Yemen came at the request of the legitimate Government of Yemen. It is backed by the United Nations Security Council, and as such we support it. On the humanitarian issue, it is for all parties in the conflict to ensure that they allow humanitarian aid to get through to those who need it.

Jeremy Corbyn: Of course we all want all possible humanitarian aid to go to Yemen to help the people who are suffering, but I refer the right hon. Lady to the remarks made by the former International Development Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who said:
“we must not be afraid to condemn the nightly attacks on Yemen by the Saudi air force that have killed and maimed innocent men, women and children.”
There has to be an urgent ceasefire to save lives in Yemen.
Why does the Prime Minister think that rough sleeping fell under Labour but has doubled under the Conservatives?

Theresa May: To respond to the first question raised by the right hon. Gentleman on the conflict taking place in Yemen, we have encouraged the Saudi Arabia Government to ensure that when there are allegations of activity taking place that is not in line with  international humanitarian law, they investigate them and learn the lessons. I believe something like 55 reports have already been published as a result of that.
On arms exports to Saudi Arabia, the right hon. Gentleman seems to be at odds with his shadow Foreign Secretary once again. This morning she said the arms industry is not something she is seeking to undermine, as long as it is within international law. She went on to say that she thought the UK can sell arms to any country as long as they are used within the law. We agree. This country has a very tight arms export regime, and when there are allegations of arms not being used within the law we expect that to be investigated and lessons to be learned.
On rough sleeping, nobody in this House wants to see anybody having to sleep rough on the streets. That is why this Government are putting in millions of pounds extra to deal with rough sleeping. It is why we are piloting the Housing First approach in three of our major cities. We want to ensure not just that we deal with the situation when somebody is found sleeping rough, but that we prevent people from sleeping rough in the first place.

Jeremy Corbyn: In November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a rough sleeping taskforce and £28 million for three pilot schemes to tackle homelessness. I understand that, four months on, the taskforce has not yet met and not a penny has been spent on that programme. There is a homelessness crisis in this country: rough sleeping has doubled since 2010. Does the Prime Minister not think it is a little unambitious to say that we are going to tackle rough sleeping by 2027?

Theresa May: We are going to eliminate it by 2027—that is our aim. Perhaps it would be helpful, Mr Speaker, if I was to update the right hon. Gentleman. The taskforce he referred to has in fact met. It met today. More importantly—the right hon. Gentleman has asked me this previously—it is not the only group of people we bring together to look at rough sleeping We have an expert advisory group that has been meeting over recent months, and whose reports, information and expertise are being in-put to that taskforce.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about homelessness. Statutory homelessness is less than half its peak in 2003, but we recognise that there is more to do. That is why we want more homes to be built. On rough sleeping, of course we want people to have a roof over their head, but about half of rough sleepers have a mental health problem. That is why we are putting more money into mental health. That is why it is not just a question of improving figures; it is a question of changing people’s lives around. If the right hon. Gentleman really cares, he will look at the complexity of this issue and recognise it is about more than giving people a roof over their head. It is about dealing with the underlying problems that lead to them rough sleeping in the first place.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am glad that the Government showed such urgency in setting up this taskforce that it took four months to have a meeting of it, and it still has not achieved anything. Many people in this country are very upset and very embarrassed about the levels of rough sleeping in this country, and many volunteer. I got a letter this week from Barry:
“I volunteer in my hometown of Southampton to feed the homeless because the lack of care and help for these individuals is a disgrace.”
He goes on to point out the number of unoccupied buildings in his town and many others. Does the Prime Minister believe that her Government cutting homelessness services by 45% since 2010 has had some effect on the numbers of people who are rough sleeping?

Theresa May: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the only way issues are solved is by bringing people together at a meeting, I have to tell him that that is not the way to solve issues. The way to deal with these issues is actually to get out there on the ground and do something about it. That is why we are funding 48 projects to help rough sleepers into emergency accommodation and to overcome issues like mental ill health and substance abuse. It is why councils around the country, during the severe weather, have been ensuring that they provide accommodation for people who are sleeping on the streets, but also dealing with the underlying issues that lead to somebody sleeping on the streets. It is why we are ensuring that we are implementing Housing First in a number of regions, to put entrenched rough sleepers into accommodation as a first step to rebuilding their lives.
This is not about figures; it is about people. It is about ensuring that we take the action necessary to deal with the problems that people face that lead to them rough sleeping. It is also about ensuring that we build enough homes in this country for people, and that is why what we are doing to revise the planning laws, to ensure that people build houses when they have planning permission, should be welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman when he stands up.

Jeremy Corbyn: I do not think any of that would come as much comfort to the rough sleepers I meet, who are begging every day just to find enough money to get into a night shelter. The Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, Lord Porter, warned that
“councils are now beyond the point where council tax”
can plug the gap. That is the result of the Government’s slashing of council budgets and passing on the buck.
After this deathly cold winter, we have more than twice as many people sleeping rough on our streets. Just one step away from that fate are 60,000 homeless households in temporary accommodation. We are the fifth richest country in the world. The growing number of people on our streets is a mark of national shame. With fewer social homes being built, less support for the homeless and a taskforce that has barely met, just how does the Prime Minister propose to tackle the homelessness crisis?

Theresa May: We propose to deal with homelessness and the issue of people who are not homeless but want to be able to have a home of their own by building more homes in this country. We propose to deal with it, as I said earlier this week, by ensuring that tenants get a fairer deal when they rent in this country. But I have to say that more council houses have been built under this Conservative Government than were built in 13 years under Labour. More social housing has been built in the last seven years than in the last seven years under the Labour Government. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to look at a record in relation  to housing, he should look at the record of the last Labour Government.
Of course, the record of the last Labour Government was described as bringing—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Mr Perkins, I know you asked about tennis earlier, but you now appear to be attempting some imitation of crochet. You should not be making these curious gesticulations; they make you look even odder than—they make you look very odd. [Interruption.] Well, I thought your behaviour was a tad odd, and I am concerned about your wellbeing. I think the hon. Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) will look after you.

Theresa May: The record of the last Labour Government on housing was described as a crisis, bringing misery and despair. Who said the last Labour Government’s record was bringing misery and despair? It was the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said that Labour did not have a good record on housing, and I agree. It is the Conservatives who are delivering the homes the country needs.

Andrew Bridgen: Over the last three years, more than 2,000 new homes have been built in North West Leicestershire, including a record 731 in the last 12 months. Additionally, my local authority is building new council houses for the first time in decades. That is all in contrast with the 227 houses completed in the year to 2010, which was the last time Labour was in government. Will my right hon. Friend use North West Leicestershire as an example to other local authorities and show them our unemployment rate of 1% and the fact that we have no rough sleepers?

Theresa May: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the example of North West Leicestershire, and we are very happy to join him in acknowledging the example it is setting. Of course, the figures he quoted contributed to the 217,000 new homes built across the country last year, which was the best year bar one in the last 30 years in terms of the number of new homes, but there is more to do. That is why we have rewritten the planning rules and had measures in the Budget to make money available and help people on to the housing ladder through the Help to Buy scheme. Once again, as he mentioned, it is the Conservatives in government who are delivering the homes that people need.

Ian Blackford: On 6 February, the Royal Bank of Scotland announced that 10 branches earmarked for closure were to be  given a reprieve, subject to a review at the end of the year. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on the Royal Bank of Scotland to do what it can to encourage people to open accounts and make sure these branches are sustainable?

Theresa May: As the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, the opening and closing of branches is a commercial matter for the Royal Bank of Scotland. He asks me to call on people to open accounts and use the branches, but of course one reason bank branches are closing is that more people are choosing not physically to go into them but to bank on the internet. It is up  to customers to decide what banking arrangements suit them.

Ian Blackford: I remind the Prime Minister that we own the Royal Bank of Scotland and that she ought to be holding the company to account. I had a phone call from a constituent of mine, an Angus Sutherland, who phoned the Royal Bank of Scotland yesterday wanting to open accounts for himself and his family. Rather than opening them in the local branch in Kyle, which is one of those earmarked for reprieve, he was told to approach a branch elsewhere. It is outrageous that the Royal Bank of Scotland is undermining the ability of these branches to stay open. Will she finally call in the chief executive, Ross McEwan, and tell him that this behaviour must end?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman has raised these questions before. I would have thought, given his background, that he would understand that these decisions are taken by commercial organisations and that it is not for the Government to tell people what sort of accounts to have or in which branches to open them. We take steps to ensure that where there are branch closures, other facilities are available; that is why we have the agreement with the Post Office to provide additional ability for people to use services through the Post Office. It is not right for him to suggest , that the Government should be telling people where to have their bank accounts and how to hold them. There are commercial decisions for banks on bank branches, and there are decisions for individual customers on their own banking arrangements.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I am pleased to say that we are now on to Back-Bench Members. I want to hear lots of them.

Kirstene Hair: Thanks to income tax hikes by the Scottish national party Government, thousands of UK armed forces personnel who are stationed in Scotland will pay more tax than their counterparts south of the border. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this Conservative Government are reviewing the steps that they can take to clean up the SNP’s mess and mitigate the tax rise for our brave servicemen and women?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important point. As a result of decisions made by the Scottish nationalists in government in Scotland, many people there will be paying higher taxes. Those earning more than £26,000 will pay higher taxes in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. I was in the Chamber for the end of Defence questions the other day when my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said that he was looking into the point that my hon. Friend has raised about armed forces personnel in Scotland.

Louise Ellman: Labour lifted a million children out of poverty, and this Government are on course to plunge a record 37% of children into poverty. Vulnerable people are being denied social care because of Government cuts in local authority budgets. Is this really a society that is working for everyone?

Theresa May: The number of people in absolute poverty has fallen under this Conservative Government. However, we want to ensure that families are helped to support themselves, which is why we have increased the  national living wage, increased the personal allowance and so taken more people out of income tax, and revised the benefits system so that more people are encouraged and able to get into the workplace

Neil Parish: I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that good air quality will improve the lives of everyone in the country, and the lives of their children and grandchildren. We are launching a Joint Committee on the subject, because cross-Government work between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Health and the Department for Transport is important. Will the Prime Minister appoint a member of the Cabinet to co-ordinate that work to ensure that our children and grandchildren benefit from better air quality?

Theresa May: This is an important issue. We are committed to being the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited. We are taking action on pollution, and I am pleased that emissions of toxic nitrogen oxides fell by almost 27% between 2010 and 2016, but there is of course more for us to do, which is why we have a £3.5 billion plan to tackle poor air quality and provide cleaner transport. Later this year, we will publish a strategy that will set out further steps.
I assure my hon. Friend that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whose Department covers energy and air quality issues, and the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, who attends Cabinet, are very well versed in putting together the arguments for better air quality.

Stewart McDonald: As the Saudi Crown Prince sweeps across Westminster and Whitehall, will the Prime Minister pledge to raise the specific case of the jailed writer Raif Badawi? He has languished in a prison for six years, all because he wrote some things that his Government did not like. His wife and children have now claimed asylum in Canada. Will the Prime Minister pledge to raise his case, and will she also do something that her predecessor never did? Will she stand at the Dispatch Box and say that Raif Badawi is no criminal, and that he should be set free?

Theresa May: I will be raising a number of cases with the Crown Prince when I see him over the next couple of days, but we do not wait for a visit from the Crown Prince to raise the case of Raif Badawi. We monitor the situation regularly and raise the issue regularly with the Saudi Government, and we will continue to  do so.

Colin Clark: Will the Prime Minister support the work that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Oil and Gas Authority are doing to facilitate the production of £1 trillion of oil and gas revenue from the continental shelf, supporting 300,000 jobs? Will she also join me in paying tribute to the men and women who work offshore to ensure that our homes stay warm?

Theresa May: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those who work in our offshore oil and gas industry, and thanking them for the  work that they do. Last week’s weather highlighted just how important that work is to us all. We remain committed to supporting the industry, building on the £2.3 billion package announced in recent Budgets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the oil and gas sector recently committed themselves to working together to ensure that the UK continues to enjoy the benefits of a world-leading offshore oil and gas industry.

Lilian Greenwood: Nottingham needs to find an extra £12 million this year to care for elderly and disabled people, but the Government’s answer—adding 3% to council tax bills—only raises just over £3 million, leaving a huge gap to be filled. No wonder Lord Porter, Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, warns that some councils will
“be pushed perilously close to the financial edge.”
Will the Prime Minister wake up to the social care crisis and urge the Chancellor to give local government the funding it needs in next week’s spring statement?

Theresa May: We have recognised the pressures that social care is under. That is why in successive fiscal events the Chancellor has given extra money to local authorities and the social care sector as a whole. Next week’s statement is not a Budget, but we have ensured that more money is going into local councils, not just through the precept that they are able to raise, but £2 billion extra has been put into social care in local authorities.

Glyn Davies: The UK internal market is by far the most important market for British goods and services today and post-Brexit. Does the Prime Minister agree that the people and businesses of my constituency and across Wales are best served by the four nations of the  United Kingdom working together constructively and positively to make Brexit a success?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the four nations working together to make a success of Brexit, but this Government are also committed to strengthening our precious Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is about providing continuity and certainty for people and businesses, and it is about making sure we do not create new barriers to doing business in what is, as my hon. Friend said, our most important market: the internal market of the UK.

Rachael Maskell: York’s housing crisis is out of control: whole families crammed into tiny box bedrooms; hundreds of damp and mouldy council homes; and street homelessness up fifteenfold since 2010. My constituents do not want warm platitudes from the Prime Minister, they just want warm homes, so when can they have the social housing that they so desperately need and that York’s Tory-Lib Dem council has completely failed to deliver, as does the Prime Minister’s strategy?

Theresa May: As the hon. Lady will have heard earlier, the Government are making changes to ensure that we build more homes in this country. But I also say to the hon. Lady that one of the issues we have had to  look at is making sure that local councils are producing local plans. I believe that York has not had a local plan for 50 years; I suggest the hon. Lady speaks to her council about it.

Justin Tomlinson: On Sunday evening it was not Meryl Streep winning an Oscar but my constituent Maisie Sly, just six years old and born profoundly deaf, after her amazing performance in the film “The Silent Child”. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the inspirational Maisie Sly and her school Red Oaks Primary, which has helped her fulfil her true potential?

Theresa May: I think everybody was captivated by Maisie’s example and the film that won the Oscar, and I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Maisie for her incredible achievement. This is important in highlighting the issue of disabled people, particularly deaf children, and it has captured the imagination of so many across the world.

Alistair Carmichael: On Friday next week the House will debate the private Member’s Bill on refugee family reunification being introduced by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). It is a very simple Bill that will allow families torn apart by conflict to rebuild their lives here together. It is supported by a coalition  of organisations including the Red Cross, Amnesty International and the Refugee Council. Will the Government add their support to this very important Bill?

Theresa May: This country has a good record of ensuring we are providing places for refugees and helping the most vulnerable, but I understand that, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we are listening to the points being made in relation to this Bill; we recognise the concern about family reunification and there are already rules in existence, but we will look carefully  at this.

Gillian Keegan: This week is National Apprenticeship Week and, as a former apprentice, I can highly recommend this route into the workplace. The Government have a great record of delivering more apprenticeships, and higher-level apprenticeships are up 35% on last year. Will the Prime Minister ensure that all schools are promoting apprenticeships, particularly those at degree level, as a first-class, debt-free choice, not a second-class option?

Theresa May: It is very important that we promote apprenticeships not as a second-class option, but as an equally valid route through training and education for young people. It is about getting the right education for every young person, and we should encourage schools to talk about apprenticeships at an earlier stage. When I visited a school in Southall with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to make my announcement about the tertiary education review, the sixth-formers made the point that they had heard about university throughout their schooling, but they only heard about apprenticeships at the very last minute of sixth form.  It is important that we open up all opportunities to young people.

Emma Reynolds: Can the Prime Minister explain why there was a 60% drop in apprenticeships last year?

Theresa May: We have introduced the apprenticeship levy, and we are looking at its application. We have a commitment over a period of years for the number of apprenticeships, and we are going to increase that number to 3 million over this Parliament. We will be doing that, and we will look very carefully at the operation of the apprenticeship levy and its impact.

Maria Miller: On International Women’s Day tomorrow, we will be celebrating record numbers of women in work, including of course our second female Prime Minister, yet attitudes towards pregnancy mean that more than 50,000 women a year are forced out of their job just for having a baby. When will the Government be taking forward the review of existing protections for pregnant women that was promised following the Women and Equalities Committee’s inquiry into this important issue?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. We have very clear laws in this country that say that discrimination in the workplace is unlawful, and there are clear regulations in place that employers must follow. In our response to the Taylor review, we committed to update the information about pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and we will review the legislation relating to protection against redundancy within the next 12 months.

Mhairi Black: The Prime Minister continues to sing the praises of universal credit while wilfully ignoring the devastation that it is still causing. How does she square her position with the fact that her Tory colleagues in Stirling Council have called for over half a million pounds- worth of funding in order to mitigate the enormous human suffering caused by universal credit?

Theresa May: Universal credit was introduced as a simpler benefit that enables and encourages people to get into the workplace. We have made a number of changes to the way in which universal credit is operated, including ensuring that it is now possible for somebody to get a 100% advance on their universal credit in very quick time at the start of their application where that is appropriate. Universal credit is a benefit that helps people get into the workplace, and work is the best route out of poverty.

Sarah Wollaston: Storm Emma left a trail of destruction along the south coast of Devon, including washing away large stretches of the A379 along the Slapton line. Will the Prime Minister please assure my constituents that they will not be left isolated and their communities separated, and will she pledge funds to help rebuild this vital link? Will she also join me in thanking the emergency services, both in my constituency and around the United Kingdom, for their extraordinary work in desperately difficult circumstances?

Theresa May: I and, I am sure, everyone in the House will be happy to join my hon. Friend in praising the emergency services for the tireless work that they have been doing to help people during the severe winter weather that we have experienced. She is right to raise  concerns about the A379 on the behalf of her constituents, and I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will shortly confirm that we will provide financial assistance to ensure that repairs to the road are undertaken as quickly as possible.

Marsha de Cordova: Battersea power station is a £9 billion development pushed through by Tory Wandsworth Council with only 9% so-called affordable homes. Eighty-five per cent. of homes in the development have been snapped up by foreign investors, which is an insult to the thousands of people on the Wandsworth housing waiting list. Is the Prime Minister embarrassed that a Tory council is siding with developers’ profits over the residents of Wandsworth?

Theresa May: This is a site that was derelict for 40 years. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. This is very discourteous. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. The question was heard—it was very forcefully delivered and very fully heard —and the Prime Minister’s answer must also be heard.

Theresa May: This is a site that was derelict for 40 years. It is now a site that will be providing homes and jobs, and I would have thought that is something to welcome.

Derek Thomas: March is Brain Tumour Awareness Month, a month dedicated to supporting people affected by brain tumours and to raising funds and awareness. Brain tumours remain the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40, a fact that has to change. There has been great progress over the past month, with the Government turning their attention to this underfunded disease, but so much more can be done. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending all those helping to raise funds and awareness this month and in recognising the many thousands of people fighting this terrible disease by making a statement about how the Government will see the job through until we have the research, the care and the cure that many, many people need?

Theresa May: I join my hon. Friend in commending all those who are raising awareness of brain cancer and who are working hard and tirelessly both on research and to raise funding. It is a devastating disease, and I was pleased to meet the noble Baroness Jowell to hear her experience of the national health service. She and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care then held a roundtable of brain cancer experts.
We have announced that an estimated £20 million will be invested through the National Institute for Health Research over the next five years in helping to fund essential brain cancer research. In addition, Cancer Research UK will be investing £25 million in research on brain tumours over the same period, helping to support two new specialised centres.

Philippa Whitford: The increasing provision of healthcare within NHS England by private providers continues to cause the fragmentation and undermining of patient services.  The Prime Minister has thus far refused to exclude such services from a US trade deal. Can she tell us how the Scottish Government will be included in the negotiations so that they can protect our Scottish NHS from being bartered away to get a deal?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady is a little late, because I was asked a question about a US trade deal and the national health service by the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) in this House on Monday, and I made it very clear that we retain the principles of the national health service and that we are not going to allow the national health service to be undermined by any trade deals we do.

Martin Vickers: Representatives of the Greater Grimsby project board will be meeting a Business Minister later today to discuss the next stage of the town deal. The proposals will be a great boost for the economy of Grimsby and Cleethorpes. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm her support for the proposals and similar initiatives?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me before, and I welcome the very strong public-private sector approach that is being pursued by the Greater Grimsby project board. He is playing an active role in the project, and I understand there have been a number of positive meetings with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I encourage the board to continue engaging with officials on the details of the plan so that we can see that development, which is so important to the local area.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: The House knows I am always concerned, whatever the time, to protect the rights of smaller parties, and today is no exception. I call Mr Nigel Dodds.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful for your protection, Mr Speaker.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge, and indeed praise, the success of the EU negotiator, Michel Barnier, in bringing a measure of progress to the Brexit negotiations in that he has managed to unite the Government and the Opposition in utter defiance of the legal text he has brought forward from the December arrangements? Does she agree that now is the time for the EU to get on with examining the sensible, pragmatic arrangements on customs and the Northern Ireland border and to get on to the main trade negotiations?

John Bercow: We hear the right hon. Gentleman, but he has been indulged.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Now is the time for the European Union negotiators to get on with the job of discussing that trade and economic partnership for the future. I am pleased that we will also be able to discuss with the Irish Government and the Commission the practical details of delivering the solution for the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, so that the free flow of  trade can continue not just between Northern Ireland and Ireland but between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Luke Graham: Last month it was announced that the proposed merger between the British Transport police and Police Scotland was being put on hold in the wake of widespread criticism from a number of different parties. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with devolved Ministers, and what next steps can be taken? Will she join in me in calling on the SNP to scrap this ill-fated proposed merger?

Theresa May: I recognise the concerns that have been expressed. Of course, we were committed to delivering on the Smith commission proposals, and as part of that we are devolving powers over the British Transport police in Scotland to the Scottish Government. As this is being looked at, the priority must remain the safety of the public, and we are committed to working with the Scottish Government to ensure a smooth transfer of the functions, should that be their decision. It is for the Scottish Government to decide, but I urge them to ensure that, as they take those decisions, they put the safety and security of the public first.

Toby Perkins: Is it Government policy that England should pull out of the World cup? If not, what on earth was the Foreign Secretary on about yesterday?

Theresa May: The point the Foreign Secretary was making yesterday was that, depending on what comes out of the investigation into the attack on the two individuals in Salisbury, it might be appropriate for the Government to look at whether Ministers and other dignitaries should attend the World cup in Russia.

Leo Docherty: In advance of the Prime Minister’s meeting this afternoon with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, does she agree that the kingdom is in fact a force for tremendous stability in a very turbulent region? Will she offer reassurance to the Crown Prince that this country will stand with him in his efforts to bring modernity, development and reform to our very important middle eastern ally?

Theresa May: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have had a long-standing and historic relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and that will continue. It has been important in our security and defence, and in the stability of the region. Moreover, under the Crown Prince and his Vision 2030, Saudi Arabia is reforming and changing and giving greater rights to women. We should encourage that and stand alongside and work with Saudi Arabia to help the Crown Prince deliver on his Vision 2030.

Alison McGovern: Today the Department for International Development launches the Jo Cox memorial grants, which will empower women in some of the most difficult parts of our world. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking wholeheartedly everyone at DFID who made this happen? Does she  also agree that, when it comes to preventing conflict, Jo’s legacy must teach us that women’s voices must be heard?

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Lady for raising this particular issue, and I am happy to welcome the UK aid contribution to the Jo Cox memorial grants, as announced today by my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary. Up to £10 million is being allocated to support grassroots organisations in delivering on two causes close to Jo’s heart: protecting against identity-based violence and boosting the social and economic and political empowerment of women and girls, helping to predict, prevent and protect against identity-based violence. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Jo was a dedicated humanitarian. She fought for  gender equality at home and in developing countries, and it is right that we as a Government and as a country encourage women’s voices to be heard, wherever they are.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. We must now bring proceedings to a close.

Alex Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: There are urgent questions that come first. If there is a point of order, it will come after that, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be in his seat, eagerly expectant.

UK RELATIONS: SAUDI ARABIA

Vincent Cable: (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on diplomatic and economic relations with Saudi Arabia.

Alistair Burt: I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, as he is currently at an engagement at the palace. The Prime Minister has invited the Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, His Royal Highness Mohammed bin Salman, to visit the United Kingdom. We are delighted to welcome him and his delegation on his first official visit to the UK, which is taking place from today until Friday.
During the visit, the Prime Minister and the Crown Prince will launch a new and ambitious strategic partnership between our two countries, which will allow us to discuss a range of bilateral matters and foreign policy issues of mutual interest. The UK Government have a close and wide-ranging relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the UK’s third fastest growing market for exports, and we continue to work together to address regional and international issues, including Yemen. The visit will allow for a substantive discussion between the Crown Prince and the Prime Minister on the need for a political resolution to the conflict in Yemen, and how to address the humanitarian crisis.
The UK fully supports the Crown Prince’s social and economic reform programme, Vision 2030. His visit is an opportunity for him to underline his vision of an outward- looking Saudi Arabia, one that embraces a moderate and tolerant form of Islam, and a more inclusive Saudi society. This includes greater freedom for women, in line with the recent statements and reforms made by the Crown Prince. We believe these reforms are the best course for Saudi Arabia’s future security, stability and prosperity, and it is right that the UK supports the Crown Prince in his Vision 2030 endeavours.

Vincent Cable: Further to the exchange in Prime Minister’s questions, may I say that there will be widespread concern across parties about the fact that the dictatorial head of a medieval, theocratic regime is being given the red carpet equivalent of a state visit? May I ask specifically whether the Foreign Secretary will be demanding the ending of the bombing of civilian targets in the Yemen civil war, which Prince Mohammed initiated? Can the Minister explain why the safeguards on the use of British weapons, which were introduced at the end of the coalition at my insistence and that of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, are, apparently, no longer being applied? Will the Foreign Secretary insist on the ending of the blockade of ports in Yemen, which is contributing to the devastating humanitarian crisis and famine, of which we have heard much in this House? Will he defend the nuclear agreement with Iran, to which we are a party and which Prime Mohammed is actively seeking to undermine? Will he condemn the attempt by Prince Mohammed to fan the flames of sectarian conflict in Lebanon, Syria, Qatar and elsewhere? Has the Minister consulted the Government Economic Service on the current economic position of Saudi Arabia, which is no longer a swing oil producer and is running out of  money, and where the main potential long-term deal available to the UK is the Saudi Aramco flotation, which will be achieved only by substantially devaluing the standards applied in the City of London?
Finally, on the threshold of International Women’s Day, may I ask whether the Minister intends to endorse Prince Mohammed’s view of modernisation: that women should be allowed to go to football matches, but not be allowed to marry, divorce, travel, have a driving licence or have an operation without the approval of their male relatives?

Alistair Burt: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. His starting point and opening view of Saudi Arabia represents one of the reasons why the Crown Prince is here. The right hon. Gentleman used the word “medieval”, and the Crown Prince has been conducting a series of reforms and has made clear statements about where he wants to take the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Everyone is aware of its history and its past, but it is really important to look at what is happening at present—good things as well as difficult things—and to point the way forward that he has with Vision 2030, both in economic and society terms. When he speaks about a modernising country supporting moderate Islam, that should be taken as seriously as any reference to the Kingdom in the past.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions. He referred to the war in Yemen as being “initiated” by Saudi Arabia, but that is not correct. What happened was that an insurgency overthrew a legitimate Government, which was backed by the United Nations, and then sought support from their neighbours in order to deal with the insurgency. The insurgency is cruel: the Houthi have executed a number of people, not least the former President of Yemen; they hold people to ransom in areas that they occupy; and they have been preventing people from getting humanitarian aid. We support the efforts of the Saudi-led coalition in order to defend Yemen against the insurgency and, more importantly, to bring the conflict to an end. That is the most important thing, but it will take both parties to do this, not just the Saudis. On weapons sales, these are as strict as any in the world, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, and there was a court case last year. We keep this under strict check to ensure that international humanitarian law is abided by and to make sure we can provide the support to Saudi Arabia that it needs to protect itself, not least in relation to weapons directed from Yemen towards its capital city—that should also not be forgotten.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to a blockade. There is no blockade; there are now no restrictions on the ports—the ports are open. There was a restriction from 19 December, following a missile attack on the capital of Yemen by Houthi forces. There is a strong suspicion that weapons were being smuggled into the country. That is why the restrictions were in place. Since 20 December, a total of 50 ships have docked, and the ports are open.[Official Report, 12 March 2018, Vol. 637, c. 3MC.] The UK has played a substantial part in ensuring that those ports are open and that humanitarian aid comes in. We will strongly defend the joint comprehensive plan of action, which we believe is in the UK’s interests and those of the region.
On the economic prospects of Saudi Arabia, we know the area is changing, and that is what Vision 2030 is about; it is about moving, in time, from an oil-based  economy to something different. This provides tremendous opportunities for the region, as well as for Saudi Arabia, and we strongly support that. We would like the Aramco share option to be issued in the UK and we will continue to suggest that the City would be the best place for it.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned International Women’s Day. It is of course obvious to us that some of the easing in things relating to women in Saudi Arabia seems incredibly mundane—the ability to attend a football match and for the cinemas to be open, the mixed space and the ability to drive—but in a Saudi context, and in the context of a conservative region, these changes have immense significance. We do not always appreciate that, but we need to make reference to it. That further progress seems likely is very much in everyone’s minds, so we should not judge the progress to date as a full stop. The engagement of women, not only in the areas we have mentioned, but increasingly in business and in government, makes a real difference to the area. International Women’s Day is enhanced, to a degree, by the sorts of changes we have seen in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Members can be sure that our Prime Minister will make sure that that progress gets every support from the UK as we move forward.

Crispin Blunt: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his comprehensive answer to the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable). Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that the question was shorn of the context of the scale of the reforms now taking place in Saudi Arabia? May I urge the Government to continue our assistance to the Government of Saudi Arabia in order to deliver the astonishing scale of ambition associated with Vision 2030?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who rightly sets this in context. No one denies that there are difficult aspects to a relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, just as there are with a number of engagements the UK has with countries whose views and human rights issues we do not always share. But the important point he made is about having engagement to seek a common view of a future, one that, as he rightly says, is changing markedly and in a way that no one quite anticipated because of the arrival of the Crown Prince in his position. He could well have an influence on the region for the next 30 years, and our engagement and support for the moderate, modernising image he has for Saudi Arabia is important to all of us.

Emily Thornberry: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) on securing it, even if it was ahead of my own application.
Let me make it clear at the outset that the Opposition want to have a good diplomatic and economic relationship with Saudi Arabia. But, as in any good relationship, there must be honesty. Most importantly, we must tell Saudi Arabia that as long as it continues the indiscriminate bombing of residential areas, farms and markets in Yemen, and as long as it continues to restrict the flow of food, medical supplies and fuels to a population suffering mass epidemics of malnutrition and cholera, it should not expect our support for that war and its Crown Prince does not deserve to have the red carpet rolled out for him here in Britain.
Let us look at the man to whom the British Government are bowing and scraping today. He is the architect of the Saudi air strikes and the blockade in Yemen; he is funding jihadi groups in the Syrian civil war and ordered his guards to beat up the Prime Minister of Lebanon. In the eight months since he became Crown Prince, he has doubled the number of executions in Saudi Arabia. But we are supposed to ignore all that because of his proposal that Saudi women be allowed to drive, just as they can everywhere else in the world.
The UK Government pretend to care about human rights and war crimes, but when it comes to Saudi Arabia and Yemen, there is nothing but a shameful silence. We all know that that is because all that they ultimately care about is how to plug the hole in trade and growth that is coming because of their Brexit plans. If the Minister wants to dispute that, will he answer one simple question? When are the Government going to stop bowing down to Saudi Arabia and instead use our role as United Nations penholder on Yemen to demand an immediate ceasefire, an end to the blockade, proper peace talks and a permanent end to this dreadful, shameful war?

Alistair Burt: I thank the right hon. Lady for her words. She started well by talking about wanting to welcome a relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Should she actually occupy my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s position, she might want to review some of the personal comments that she made after that and wonder how that would constitute a decent start to the relationship that she wants to see.
Let me get to the substance and deal with one or two of the right hon. Lady’s questions. First, there is not indiscriminate bombing of civilians, as has been alleged. It is vital that we make sure that, in dealing with the military aspects of the conflict, which was not started by Saudi Arabia, we are able to see that, in terms of international humanitarian law, there is only the targeting of legitimate military targets. The United Kingdom has been as helpful as possible in trying to make sure that the training for that is appropriate. When there have been allegations of civilian casualties, those cases have been dealt with, monitored and investigated in a manner completely different from that in respect of Houthi activity, which I noticed the right hon. Lady did not seek to condemn in any way at all.
On the humanitarian issues, as I indicated, there is not a blockade or restriction of goods coming in. It is important that commercial food and fuel gets in. It is equally important that those who have had missiles targeted at them after those missiles have been smuggled into Yemen are able to protect themselves. We have worked hard to try to ensure that there is protection for Saudi Arabia from missiles coming in and, in doing so, to give Saudi Arabia the confidence to allow more ships to come in to deal with the humanitarian issues. That seems to me to be a constructive way to deal with both sides of the issues, rather than the straightforward condemnation that we heard from the right hon. Lady.
In respect of the current reforms in Saudi Arabia and those going forward, the right hon. Lady reduces them to de minimis by saying that it is all about women driving. As I indicated to the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), who I have to say asked a rather more serious set of questions, the issue of  women’s progress is not simply about driving; it is about a whole series of other reforms. Driving has a totemic importance for many people in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but should not be taken as the sole thing that is changing.
There has been no silence from the United Kingdom on Yemen. We have been very clear about the fact that there is no military solution, which is why we have been working so hard for a diplomatic solution, why we welcome the newly appointed UN envoy, whom the right hon. Lady did not mention, and why we are doing everything we can to try to make sure that there is a diplomatic base. All our evidence is that ceasefires work when there is some relationship on the ground that makes them plausible and feasible. Because of the activity of the Houthis, those who support them and those who direct weapons at Saudi Arabia, it is not possible for there to be a ceasefire with any sense of purpose or sense that it would actually work. What we must do—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The Minister of State is in full flow, and we are listening to the flow of his eloquence and the eloquence of his flow. I say very gently to the shadow Foreign Secretary, who is normally a most restrained individual, that I understand how incredibly passionate she is but feel sure that in a courtroom she would not chunter noisily from a sedentary position, because she would earn the wrath of the judge.

Alistair Burt: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Let me be straightforward: calling for a ceasefire is not the same as having one. We all want to see an end to the conflict in Yemen, and we have said that very clearly to the Saudi coalition. We support the appointment of the new UN envoy and we are working for a ceasefire, but simply calling for one does not do it. We have to make sure that we have the facts on the ground so that we can make sure that a ceasefire actually works.

Emily Thornberry: indicated dissent.

Alistair Burt: It is all very well for the right hon. Lady to shake her head, but she is not faced with some of the issues that face Government Ministers on this issue, and nor is she giving full credit to the efforts that are being made to try to bring this matter to an end. She is not the sole holder of conscience in this place as we deal with the difficulties of trying to address the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. That is what we are seeking to do and we will continue to bend all our efforts to that, with or without her support.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I am happy to confirm that neither “Erskine May” nor any Standing Order of the House prohibits the shaking or, indeed, for that matter, the nodding of heads.

Anna Soubry: rose—

John Bercow: Ah, another person who has been noisily chuntering from a sedentary position. She can now speak from her feet. I call Anna Soubry.

Anna Soubry: I would never do such a thing, Mr Speaker.
As you know, Mr Speaker, I am a feminist. When I was a Health Minister—serving in the same Government as the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), I might add—I had the honour to lead a delegation to Saudi Arabia, as a woman, obviously. At no time did I find any prejudice or disrespect, and I was quite surprised about that.
I commend all my right hon. Friend the Minister’s fine words. Does he agree that although we are obviously a long way from seeing in the Kingdom the sort of rights that we would expect of any modern civilised society, the best way to achieve those rights and to influence that country is to have firm conversations and a good relationship in private?

John Bercow: All I would say to the right hon. Lady, in the friendliest possible spirit, is that if in the course of her visit she met, for example, a prince, it might well be that that person thought that he was meeting a fellow royal.

Alistair Burt: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) for her regally dispensed question. I absolutely concur with her sentiments. We do talk very frankly and honestly to counterparts, even in the most difficult circumstances. It is right that we express our interest in how reforms are going. They will not lead to a society that we have developed after many hundreds of years, but the progress that is being made is significant in the context of where Saudi Arabia wants to go and how it wants to lead the region. To talk about moderate Islam in an area where those who promote moderate Islam are at risk and threatened by others takes a degree of bravery and courage from the Saudi Arabian leadership. That is what we recognise. There is more to go, more work to do and more concerns to be expressed, but as my right hon. Friend said, making sure that it is done with engagement is a key part of the process.

Stephen Gethins: I thank the Minister for once again coming to the Chamber to answer this urgent question. He will be aware that Yemen has been described as the world’s worst man-made humanitarian disaster. Members have been quite right to highlight the issue of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia ahead of International Women’s Day tomorrow. Will he also be raising the plight of women in Yemen, who, it has been reported, often have to choose which child to save owing to the cholera and famine effected by that conflict? The UK has leverage. Since the start of the war, UK arms sales have outstripped aid to Yemen 18 times over. Will he use that leverage? Finally—this is a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald)—will he have discussions about the fact that Raif Badawi is not a criminal?

Alistair Burt: I will, if I may, address two issues. In relation to Yemen, no one denies the scale of the humanitarian crisis. I have met officials from the UN, the Red Cross and the World Health Organisation, and we are as confident as we can be that support to prevent the next round of cholera will be in place. Of course, none of it should be necessary. If the conflict were ended, these concerns would not be raised, and that, of course, is what we are bending all our efforts to. I  genuinely wish it was as straightforward as saying to one of the parties to the conflict—to the party that did not start it—“if you stop doing anything, everything will be all right.” I honestly do not believe that that is the answer, which is why we work through other methods and other means. We have done all we can in relation to providing food, fuel and water and supporting those who deliver it, but the restrictions are caused by the conflict. They are caused by those who support the insurgents and what they have done, and we will do all we can to break that down. We do indeed raise the case of the blogger. We have followed that case very carefully and raised our concerns with Saudi Arabia.

Michelle Donelan: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the Crown Prince’s statement that his goal is to build a country of moderate Islam that is open to all religions and to the world? Will this Government be encouraging and influencing them to follow through on this and build on their recent social reforms?

Alistair Burt: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As I mentioned earlier, that statement about moderate Islam is something that we would all take for granted here, but we should set it in a context in which there are disputes about where Islam should go, what we have seen in relation to Daesh, and the propaganda that emerges from those who would see Islam taking quite a different course. The fact that the statement comes from someone who will, in time, be the custodian of the two holy mosques is really very significant, and she is right to draw attention to that.

Karen Buck: We all want to see a modernised and moderate regime in Saudi Arabia, but according to the charity Reprieve, the Government have called for an additional eight executioners to be recruited. Meanwhile, 18 people, mostly young, some of whom were arrested on demonstrations while they were children, remain on death row. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will be raising their plight with the Saudi Prince while he is here?

Alistair Burt: The United Kingdom stands full square against the use of execution and against the use of the death penalty, and whether it is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or anywhere else, including the United States and China, we make that explicitly clear. We do take up cases. We have been concerned with those cases where minors might have been indicted, and we have received assurances in relation to them. There is no doubt that if reforms continue in relation to the changing of the nature of offences that attract the death penalty, which seems to be one way in which its use can be reduced, the United Kingdom will welcome that. None the less, we stand full square against the use of the death penalty in any circumstances.

Helen Whately: Those of us who have been to Saudi recently have seen how quickly things are changing in such a deeply traditional country. With International Women’s Day tomorrow, does my right hon. Friend agree that, actually, this is a good opportunity to welcome the progress being made on rights and opportunities for women in Saudi Arabia?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. The purpose of parliamentary visits, in which many Members engage, is to get an opportunity to see the context of a country. It is not about being given a grand tour of easy options, but about getting the chance to ask difficult questions. In my experience, Members of Parliament take that opportunity fully. To be able to observe, as my hon. Friend has, some of the palpable changes in where women are going and to speak to women now involved in culture, music and business, is to see where the country intends to take itself, and a woman’s voice in where it is going is an important one and increasingly heard.

Alison Thewliss: My constituents, from Garnethill to Strathbungo and Dumbreck to Toryglen, have all been emailing me with deep concerns over the hospitality being afforded to the Saudi royalty against the backdrop of children regularly killed by the bombs that we are selling them. What more are the Government doing to ensure that the Saudis carry out the full implementation of the UN humanitarian response plan? Children in Yemen are dying far, far too frequently every single day and Yemen just cannot wait.

Alistair Burt: I agree with the hon. Lady—no, of course, Yemen cannot wait. As I said earlier, if I believed for a moment that asking one party to the conflict simply to stop its activities would bring an end to it, then we would all advocate that solution, but I do not believe that that is the case. There must be a negotiated end; it should come as quickly as possible, and we have been pressing for that for some considerable time. In the meantime, we are doing everything we can to ease the humanitarian situation, and we have seen an easing of restrictions, particularly since the visits of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to Djibouti and to Riyadh in December, where she was able to explain to the coalition exactly what the international community was doing to seek to protect them. That led to an easing of the restrictions straight away, but nothing will truly help the people of Yemen until the conflict comes to an end. On that, she, her constituents and all the rest of us are absolutely right.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I am very keen to accommodate remaining colleagues, but there is another urgent question to follow. We are immensely appreciative of the fund of knowledge and wisdom that is regularly on display from the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I may be permitted gently to observe that there is also no procedural or Standing Order bar, where appropriate in the mind of the Minister, on single-sentence answers to questions.

Rebecca Pow: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the social reforms already undertaken by the Crown Prince, and can he confirm that the Government will be encouraging the Saudi authorities to go further in this regard, because the very best way to influence them is to keep the door open? Let me also say, out of interest, that 52% of all graduates in the Kingdom in 2017 were women. There are 30 women members of the Shura Council, which proportionately is more than in the Senate. Of particular interest to me  is the fact that, in the transformation plan, there are some very, very positive moves on the environment, and these will have a far-reaching effect not just on the people of Saudi Arabia, but indeed globally.

John Bercow: No doubt in Taunton Deane.

Alistair Burt: As I could not put it any better myself, may I say that I agree with my hon. Friend, and that the United Kingdom will continue to give support in the direction that she advocates.

John Woodcock: Does the Minister share my fear that people in positions of responsibility may unwittingly put themselves on the side of prolonging, and indeed potentially worsening, the crisis if they, either by deceit or by design, choose to ignore areas where the Kingdom has, in part, corrected what were at times deplorable mistakes in its initial conduct of the conflict?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman has a deep knowledge of the area and the complexities involved. The conflict requires handling with balance, as do any of these difficult circumstances. We are right to understand the cause of the conflict, right to understand concerns that have been raised in its conduct, and right also to acknowledge that things have changed because of international pressure. Ultimately, when there is a situation in which an insurgency brings in external forces to attack a state, it could lead to an unfortunate set of consequences for the future if that state left the situation undealt with. That is why we want to see the matter resolved, with the safety and security of Saudi and Yemen at the heart of a future peace arrangement.

David Jones: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the intervention of Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners in Yemen was at the request of the legitimate Government of that country? Does he also agree that the principal insurgents, the Houthis and their allies, Hezbollah, are funded and supplied by Iran whose actions are significantly prolonging the conflict in that country?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations. Although the circumstances in Yemen are indeed dire and call for a conclusion to the conflict, not to understand the origins of the conflict and how it was started—the call for help and assistance by the legitimate Government—would be to fail to understand how the conflict can properly be brought to a conclusion. That outside influences have been involved, causing great danger, and great fears and concerns, in the region is also extremely clear.

Mike Gapes: The Minister mentioned the two holy places. Hundreds of thousands—probably millions—of British citizens aspire to go or will go on the Hajj. During these discussions, will he be raising the issues about their security, and the way in which they are treated? Will he also emphasise the importance of Saudi Arabia revitalising the Arab peace initiative for a middle east peace settlement?

Alistair Burt: I would say two things. First, in relation to the Hajj, I do not know what is definitely on the agenda for each detail of the talks, but the hon. Gentleman and the House can be assured that the safety of those going to Hajj from the United Kingdom is always important, and often raised by the ambassador; and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia knows how important that is to all who undertake the pilgrimage.
On the Arab peace initiative, yes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am really interested in how the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia might respond to anything we see soon from the US envoys. The Arab peace initiative, which lies at the basis of potential solutions, as it has for some time, remains very much in the minds of those who want to see peace between the Palestinians and Israel.

Zac Goldsmith: Historically, Saudi Arabia has channelled hundreds of millions, if not billions of pounds into the violent end of Islamic extremism all around the world. In my right hon. Friend’s assessment, has that approach shifted visibly under the Crown Prince?

Alistair Burt: The short answer to that is yes. We are all well aware of recent history, and that elements in Saudi Arabia may have been involved in elements of violent extremism. I think the setting of the Crown Prince’s face and his state against that, by calling for moderate Islam and for a modernisation, which flies in the face of those very extremists, is making clear the way in which Saudi Arabia wants to deal with its past and seek an alternative future.

Andrew Slaughter: There is no mention at all of human rights in the Crown Prince’s modernisation programme, Vision 2030—perhaps not surprisingly, as more than 300 people have been executed since it was launched, including children and peaceful protesters. I was not sure whether the Minister said that the issue of executions, beheadings and crucifixions would be raised with the Crown Prince. May I ask that it is, and specifically the issue of the juveniles who have been on death row for many years—Ali al-Nimr, Dawoud al-Marhoon and Abdullah al-Zaher?

Alistair Burt: I made clear to the House a moment ago the United Kingdom’s feelings about the death penalty—that the issue is raised, that it is not our policy, and that it is not a policy that we support in any state. We have raised the case of the minors, seeking a situation where they might not be executed. That matter remains very much a matter of concern to the United Kingdom, which is why we talk about it publicly and raise it privately as well.

Desmond Swayne: It was self-evident earlier that Houthi propaganda has been remarkably effective. Is there anything we could learn from that?

Alistair Burt: I defer to my right hon. Friend in his knowledge of propaganda and how it might be used. I am not sure whose voices are listened to most in relation to this matter. As the Houthi are not a state, because of history, it has been very easy to target the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in this case. A more comprehensive picture of the conflict would perhaps lead to different conclusions.  The conclusion, however, that we all want the conflict to end, so that there can be a durable peace and better security for the people of Yemen, who deserve better governance than they have had for some decades, is a matter of importance to us all.

Paul Sweeney: In the last month there has been huge disruption in access for international aid into Yemen’s ports on the Red sea. Given that that is primarily caused by Saudi Arabian blockades, will the Minister ensure that it is brought up with the Crown Prince as a matter of urgency, and that it is a serious objective of the UK Government to reopen those ports and allow access for humanitarian aid to the 22 million people in need of urgent assistance?

Alistair Burt: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I gave the House a moment ago. The restrictions were imposed because of the Saudis’ quite legitimate concerns that weapons, or weapons parts, that are directed against them are smuggled into Yemen. We wanted to give the assurance that we would do all we could to try to prevent that, and that in the process the restrictions on ships coming in could be eased. We have seen an easing of those restrictions. The ports are now open. Fifty ships have docked since the restrictions were imposed in December, and we shall do all we can.[Official Report, 12 March 2018, Vol. 637, c. 4MC.] The United Kingdom has taken a leading part, both in reassuring the coalition about the direction of missiles towards it, and in making the point about the crucial and urgent need for both commercial and humanitarian aid to enter Yemen.

John Howell: In seeking to explore the context for a ceasefire, does the UK believe that Iran has broken any United Nations sanctions?

Alistair Burt: Yes; I thank my hon. Friend for the question. The UN panel of experts held very clearly, within recent weeks, that Iran had not been able to demonstrate that it had abided by UN resolution 2216, which is about the availability of weapons going to Yemen. That was what caused concern about the breach of UN sanctions. It emphasises again external interest in Yemen. That should also come to an end as part of a comprehensive peace agreement.

David Linden: Over the past 24 hours, my inbox has been flooded by messages from constituents who want to see a ceasefire in Yemen, and the Minister has just said a number of times that the Government want an end to the conflict in Yemen. How does he square that circle, though, when this Government have been facilitating £4.6 billion-worth of arms sales, making us complicit in Yemen?

Alistair Burt: I understand the question. I repeat that the relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in terms of its defence and its place in a difficult and quite hostile region, is long-standing. In relation to Yemen, any arms exports are covered by extremely strict legal guarantees and the scrutiny of this House and the courts.
In relation to ending the conflict, as I said, it is not as simple as saying to one party, “Stop doing this and all will be all right.” When they have on their borders those  who have made incursions into Saudi Arabia before, and when they have missiles directed at them, I do not think it would have any credibility. Accordingly, we must continue to do all we can, through the UN, to bring an end to this conflict. Military pressure on a Houthi insurgency has been part of that process, but clearly, as we have said before, we do not see a military solution to this; we see a process leading to negotiations and an end to the conflict as soon as possible.

Gareth Johnson: The Crown Prince has been absolutely clear that he wants to build a moderate, modern future for Saudi Arabia. The whole House would want to see him achieve that. Does the Minister agree that the best way to bring that about is to work with him and to assist him, not build diplomatic walls between our two countries?

Alistair Burt: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is indeed the point of the engagement, which, I can again assure the House, covers the very positive parts of what is happening in Saudi Arabia, such as reforms and modernisation, but does not shy away from the difficult things that I know are on the minds both of Members and their constituents.

Kevin Foster: It is right that we engage with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and it would be unrealistic to suggest that we do not. A number of us have a concern around the attitude to freedom of religion—people’s right to practise their own faith in the Kingdom. Can he reassure me that such issues will be raised during the visit to the UK?

Alistair Burt: Freedom of religion is a particularly difficult issue because of Saudi Arabia’s position as the custodian of the two holy mosques. We are absolutely clear: greater tolerance throughout the region, one faith for another, is crucial if the region is to move away from the path of confrontation on which it appears set. There will always be a voice here for tolerance of other faiths, and for progressive moves towards freedom of faith throughout the region.

Simon Hoare: I refer to my entry in the register. I know it will embarrass my right hon. Friend, but can I invite him to comment or reflect upon this? Relations between countries will often depend on the quality and diligence of our diplomatic ambassadors overseas. We are very lucky to have a first-class ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He has converted to Islam and undertaken the Hajj, and I have seen at first hand the close, honest relationship that he has with the Government of Saudi Arabia. He is a pinnacle and best example of our diplomatic corps, and this House should be grateful to him for helping to occasion this important visit, which certainly I welcome.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that. Behind all the efforts of Ministers at the Dispatch Box is an extraordinary diplomatic team, of which our ambassador in Riyadh, Simon Collis, is a perfect example. I fully endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. I would also mention Simon Shercliff, who has just stepped down as our ambassador to Yemen, and all the efforts that he made, and we wish Michael Aron, the new ambassador to Yemen, very well. It is a  first-class team and is representative of a first-class team throughout the region, which I have the honour to represent.

Rebecca Pow: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I gather it relates to the exchanges that have just taken place.

Rebecca Pow: I would like to put it on record, for clarification, that I went on a delegation to Saudi Arabia. I want to be quite clear about that.

John Bercow: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for putting that on the record. The House will appreciate it.

Blagging: Leveson Inquiry

Tom Watson: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the allegations of blagging at The Sunday Times and the relevance of these to the Leveson public inquiry.

Matthew Hancock: This morning we saw reports in the media of a potential fraud and data protection breach by a former private investigator. The allegations are of behaviour that appears totally unacceptable and potentially criminal. Investigation is therefore a matter for the police, and the House will understand that there is only so far that I can go in discussing the specific details and allegations.
More broadly, some people have already formed the conclusion that this revelation should require us to change policy on press regulation. Policy, of course, should always be based on all available information. It is worth noting that the activity described apparently stopped around 2010, before the establishment of the Leveson inquiry. Indeed, it was precisely because of such cases that the Leveson inquiry was set up. This sort of behaviour was covered by the terms of reference of that inquiry, and Mr Ford’s activities were raised as part of the inquiry.
As we discussed in the House last week, and again on Monday, there have been three detailed police investigations. A wide range of offences were examined; over 40 people were convicted, and many went to prison. Today’s revelations, if proven, are clearly already covered by the law and appear to be in contravention of section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998. As described, they would also appear to be in contravention of the new Data Protection Bill that is currently before the House.
What is more, the fact that this activity stopped in 2010 underlines the point that the world has changed. Practices such as these have been investigated. Newspapers today are in a very different position from when the alleged offences took place. That view is in fact strengthened by today’s example, because the behaviour that we have discovered today was from before the Leveson inquiry, and existing law is in place to deal with it. Criminal behaviour should be dealt with by the police and the courts, and anyone who has committed a criminal offence should face the full force of the law.
The future of a vibrant, free and independent press matters to us all. We are committed to protecting it. We want to see the highest standards, and we must face the challenges of today to ensure that Britain has high-quality journalism and high-quality discourse to underpin our democracy for the years to come.

Tom Watson: I refer to my entry in the register.
The world has not changed. The “one rogue blagger” defence—it has been uttered from the mouth of the Secretary of State. When he announced last week that he was dropping the Leveson inquiry, the Culture Secretary said he was doing so because the inquiry
“looked into everything in this area, and it was followed by three police investigations…We looked into these things as a society. We had a comprehensive Leveson inquiry.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2018; Vol. 636, c. 974.]
He told us that the matter was closed—there was nothing more to see. Well, overnight, the BBC has reported allegations by another whistleblower, John Ford, who says that he was a blagger for The Sunday Times for 15 years—a newspaper that the Secretary of State did not even mention.
Mr Ford claimed that he obtained private bank and mortgage information about Cabinet members and public figures. He says that his activity for the paper was illegal, intrusive and ultimately wrong. In his evidence to the first half of the public inquiry, Times editor John Witherow, who then edited The Sunday Times, conceded that Ford had worked for the paper, but did not reveal that he had done so for over a decade. Today, The Sunday Times has disputed the new claims.
The second half of the Leveson inquiry could establish where the truth lies. That is what it was set up to do, but the Government are closing down the public inquiry before it has done its work, despite Sir Brian Leveson saying that he fundamentally disagrees with that decision, along with 130,000 concerned citizens who said it should go ahead and whom the Secretary of State has chosen to disregard. He is capitulating to the press barons, who want to use their raw power to close down a national public inquiry. In the light of the new allegations, will he reconsider his decision on the public inquiry into illegality in the press? If not, how will he assure the House and the public that these new allegations of criminal behaviour by The Sunday Times will be fully investigated? Is it not now clear to him that too many questions remain unanswered to justify the decision to break David Cameron’s solemn promise to the victims of press abuse?

Matthew Hancock: I think I covered all those questions in my statement. As I mentioned, not only did the Leveson inquiry have terms of reference that covered this type of allegation, but this person was raised at the Leveson inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman implied, it is of course a matter for the police to follow up any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. He also asked whether we should therefore bring in an inquiry that is backward-looking and bring in rules that would help to undermine further the free press that we need, notably section 40. The answer to both those questions last week was clearly no, and this new evidence, of activity that it appears took place up to 2010—therefore, up to seven years ago—is not a reason to reopen decisions that were taken exactly on the basis that the world has changed. If anything, this evidence demonstrates further how much things have changed.

Kenneth Clarke: I was Justice Secretary when we set up the Leveson inquiry and when we promised the second stage of the inquiry, so my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to discover that I share some of Sir Brian Leveson and other people’s disappointment that the second-stage inquiry was postponed. Does my right hon. Friend really think that there is no longer sufficient public interest in new allegations of this kind or in knowing which newspapers were bribing which policemen because it was as long ago as seven years? Does he think that the best newspapers in  this country would accept that judgment for a moment if it was applied to any other sector of the economy? We have public inquiries in hand at the moment looking into much older things—allegations of sexual abuse, the haemophilia tragedy, and others—so will he not wait until we have a new allegation that is post-2011 before at least thinking again a bit about his decision?

Matthew Hancock: I respect my right hon. and learned Friend’s view. Indeed, it was an honour to serve with him in government. But the question that faces us is: what is the right thing to do now to ensure that we have high-quality democratic discourse, when the press face such great challenges, and to tackle fake news, deliberate disinformation, clickbait and the impact of the internet, which was hardly covered by this inquiry? We are taking that work forward. As I mentioned in my statement, allegations of behaviour such as this were covered and looked into by the original inquiry, and there were extensive police investigations. If it comes to another police case into these allegations, the existing law is there to cover it.

Brendan O'Hara: Clearly these new reports are worrying and only add to the serious concerns that many of us across the House have about the behaviour of the press. Scottish National party Members have always said that individuals should be able to seek redress when they feel they have been the victim of press malpractice, and it benefits every one of us to have a media that is both transparent and accountable.
I repeat that if Leveson 2 is to be set up, the Scottish Government must be consulted and Scotland’s distinct legal system recognised. In those circumstances, we would support efforts to establish a new UK-wide press inquiry. What action, if any, is the Secretary of State proposing to take on these new allegations? Can he guarantee that if an inquiry is established, it would happen only after consultation with the Scottish Government and would take into account and respect Scotland’s distinct legal system?

Matthew Hancock: Of course I respect the constitutional settlement. Action is necessary as a result of these revelations, and it is action for the police into allegations of what appear to be criminal activities.

Damian Collins: The Secretary of State is right to say that criminality is a matter for the police, but does he feel that the Information Commissioner, who has the right to investigate breaches of personal data, has all the power she needs? Is he listening to her calls to further strengthen her powers through the Data Protection Bill?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course. We have a good working relationship with the Information Commissioner. Her powers are being strengthened by the Data Protection Bill, and I am sure that the level to which and the ways in which they are strengthened will be properly scrutinised as the Bill goes through Committee and further stages.

Ed Miliband: I urge the Secretary of State to stop trying to hide behind the Leveson inquiry, because the man who was responsible  for that inquiry says he fundamentally disagrees with him. In the remarkable letter he wrote to the Secretary of State, he said:
“I have no doubt that there is still a legitimate expectation on behalf of the public and, in particular, the alleged victims of phone hacking and other unlawful conduct, that there will be a full public examination of the circumstances that allowed that behaviour to develop and clear reassurances that nothing of the same scale could occur again”.
That is the point. Of course the police can look into specific instances, but the question Sir Brian is posing is: what was the culture that allowed those practices to happen, and how can we have reassurance that that culture has changed? How can we have that reassurance without a Leveson 2 inquiry?

Matthew Hancock: Not only has there already been a Leveson inquiry into those areas, but the culture has clearly changed, and the fact that these practices ended in 2010 underlines the fact that they are historical. What we now have to address is how we ensure that there is high-quality journalism in the years to come, rather than revisiting the time when the right hon. Gentleman was at the height of his powers.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that revelations of blagging by private investigators employed by newspapers have been known about ever since Operation Motorman and the subsequent report by the Information Commissioner, which was more than 10 years ago and led to prosecutions and convictions? He is absolutely right that newspapers today face real challenges, and it is those that we should be looking into through the inquiry that the Government have set up, rather than revisiting events of a decade ago.

Matthew Hancock: It was a great pleasure to serve in government with my right hon. Friend, who preceded me in this job. He has great wisdom in this area and understands the challenges faced in having a high-quality media with high-quality journalism that must behave appropriately and ensuring that people have redress, such as in the low-cost arbitration system that now exists. He put a lot of work into putting all of that  into place, and I pay tribute to him and agree with what he said.

Chris Bryant: The thing is, we heard time and time again that it was just one rogue reporter and one rogue newspaper, and then that it was just one rogue company. We now learn, because of civil actions that people have had to put their homes in danger to be able to take, and because of revelations last night, that it was very extensive, including The Sunday Times, which thus far has always denied any involvement in this kind of activity. Last week, the Secretary of State said that he hoped there would be improvements to the press complaints system. What improvements would he like to see?

Matthew Hancock: I want the low-cost arbitration system that has been put in place by the Independent Press Standards Organisation to work. At the moment, we have not seen a full case go through it. It has just been  put in place, in November, and I want to see it work better. I want to make sure that when wrong decisions are made, there is a proper acknowledgment of and apology for that.

Bill Wiggin: Those who believe in a truly free press should not accept IPSO, and those who do not believe in a truly free press cannot accept it either. In the light of these criminal confessions, which only The Guardian and the BBC reported, does my right hon. Friend agree that implementing section 40 would be more in the spirit of building a country that works for everyone than the current system, whereby only the very rich can challenge the press?

Matthew Hancock: I have a lot of time for my hon. Friend. Making sure the country works for everyone means making sure we have a press that can investigate people and cannot be put off such investigations by the threat of costs, even if everything they report is accurate. Therefore, I think that section 40 is not appropriate, but it is important that we have proper redress through IPSO, which has recently brought in a new system, and, as I said in my previous response, I would like to see that working.

John Bercow: I am sure the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) will go about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step as a result of enjoying the approbation of no less a figure than the Secretary of State.

Joanna Cherry: Does the Secretary of State agree that as well as being criminal, the behaviour described by John Ford would be actionable in civil law? If section 40 were enforced, it would be of considerable benefit to any member of the public who was a potential claimant, particularly if the publisher of The Sunday Times were held to be vicariously liable for the criminal and civilly actionable behaviour.

Matthew Hancock: The hon. and learned Lady has demonstrated just how much this is a matter for the courts and potentially criminal. She raises the issue of civil action. That is how in this country we deal with misdoing such as this that is potentially criminal.

Simon Hoare: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that if the allegations published are true, they would be criminal acts and could be prosecuted today, without any recourse to either Leveson 2 or indeed any other inquiry? If there is a concern about access to funds, might Mr Mosley and his supporters fund such an action?

Matthew Hancock: Certainly the allegations we have read about are potentially criminal, and dealing with that is a matter not for Ministers but, rightly, for the police.

Darren Jones: Hundreds of thousands of the British people, Lord Leveson and now the revelations from Mr Ford have made it clear that this matter is not closed, which might lead the public to ask: what is there to hide? Why will the Secretary of State not just let Leveson 2 take place, so that he can once and for all put a line under it and show that, as he attests, the world has indeed moved on?

Matthew Hancock: Because I am concentrating on what we need for the future, not on what happened more than seven years ago.

Julian Knight: The Sunday Times blagging revelations are deeply disquieting, but they are historical. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and the victims of press intrusion, in particular those who face it in times of bereavement, that the new model of regulation introduced since the Leveson inquiry makes such activities much less likely and that there are proper sanctions in place?

Matthew Hancock: Not only is that what is in place, but it is what must be in place. Ensuring that that happens and that, at the same time, the free press is protected and standards are protected is extremely important.

Christine Jardine: The Secretary of State tells us that the world has changed. May I remind him that when the Press Council was set up we were assured the world had changed, and then when the Press Complaints Commission was set up we were assured the world had changed? We do not know it has changed; we do not know that this action stopped with the Leveson inquiry. Perhaps the only way we would know was if we had Leveson 2. Will he reconsider having Leveson 2?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady tries to argue that things are not different from seven years ago. The challenges facing the press are different, but the polity is also different. We have legislative changes in the rules for the police—we have a new police code of ethics—and on the press side, we have a wholly new regulator. The idea that things are the same as they were is undermined by the fact that this is historical activity, not recent activity.

Edward Argar: A free and independent press, especially local press, is a pillar of our democracy. It is vital that the press adhere to the highest ethical and journalistic standards and that any criminal allegations are fully investigated, and it is also vital that that freedom is preserved and respected. It is a difficult balance to strike, but will my right hon. Friend reassure me that it is exactly that difficult balance that he and his predecessors have consistently sought to strike?

Matthew Hancock: That is right—as well as always facing the challenges that are in front of us now. The idea that we should put at risk hundreds more local newspapers, over and above the 200 that have shut since 2005, is anathema to me, because it is so important that our local press is supported. People who support the implementation of section 40 support ending the ability of the local press to investigate people locally and, ultimately, are undermining those businesses.

Julie Elliott: If the allegations by John Ford are proved to be true, it means not only that there has been a serious abuse of power by major newspapers for over a decade, but that John Witherow—then the editor of The Sunday Times, and now the editor of The Times—was only partially truthful in his evidence to the Leveson inquiry. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the full truth is finally revealed?

Matthew Hancock: As the hon. Lady knows, if the allegations are to be investigated, that is a matter for the police. They will therefore look into these allegations, and that is the right place for that to happen.

Matt Warman: I should declare that among the allegations printed in The Guardian, it is alleged that Mr Ford worked for The Telegraph, my former employer. Is it not itself a demonstration of how much the culture has changed that our newspapers are reporting on these historical allegations and, furthermore, that we have a regulator that provides the low-cost arbitration that would give victims the redress the Opposition claim they need so desperately?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is spot-on. There is a group of people in this House right now who are interested in the past, and there is a group interested in the future, and I am firmly interested in making sure we have decent, high-quality journalism for the future.

Nicholas Dakin: The Father of the House is completely right that the press would not allow other institutions or organisations to be judged against such a low bar. Why is the Secretary of State satisfied that the press are not being judged against the sort of bar that they would judge other people against?

Matthew Hancock: These are allegations of criminal behaviour that are printed in a newspaper—a newspaper that supported the approach we took on Thursday—so they are being printed in the media and discussed in this House. Allegations of criminal behaviour should of course be dealt with properly by the police in the normal way.

Michelle Donelan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Leveson 2 would not only be very costly and lengthy, but might undermine the freedom of our press, be disproportionate and, given that newspapers’ circulation has been declining while digital media consumption has been increasing, be too narrow?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is quite right: we have to make sure that we have in place vibrant high-quality journalism and a free press that can hold the powerful to account. Some people may not like that, but it is an incredibly important part of having high-quality political discourse and, ultimately, liberal democracy as we know it. That is what we are focused on.
My hon. Friend mentions the costs, which I had not even come on to. The potential cost of another Leveson inquiry is estimated to be about £5 million. I think that that is money better spent ensuring there is a sustainable future for high-quality journalism.

Alex Norris: The Secretary of State says it is not desirable to look at the events of the past because the Department is focusing its efforts on fake news and clickbait. Why can we not do both?

Matthew Hancock: We have already had a full investigation, through Leveson, of what happened. The question now is what we do next.

Andrew Slaughter: Not only is the Secretary of State’s fig-leaf excuse that the world has changed wrong, but it ignores the fact that the delay in part 2 was always built into the inquiry to allow police investigations to take place. The Sunday Times revelations show that evidence is there to be investigated. Does not his wilful refusal to allow the inquiry to proceed just make it look as though he and the media have something to hide?

Matthew Hancock: No. The hon. Gentleman says that this morning’s evidence shows that there needs to be further investigation. This is of course why we have the police to investigate and, if necessary, the courts to ensure that justice is done.

Lisa Cameron: The Secretary of State stated at the start that policy must “be based on all available information”, but how can that possibly happen if there is no second stage of the inquiry, as has been recommended, so will he stop contradicting himself and get on with the job?

Matthew Hancock: It is very hard to add anything more to the fact that there will be an investigation if the police deem the allegations of what appears to be criminal behaviour to be criminal behaviour. The point is that that is a matter for the police in this country, not for Ministers.

Chris Matheson: The Secretary of State talks about these being historical events, but of course the victims of the latest hack found out about it only yesterday, and may not even know about it at the moment, so that is not very  historical. Sir Brian Leveson wrote a letter to the Secretary of State saying that matters had not yet been fully considered and that we needed the second part of the inquiry. Why does he think he knows better than Sir Brian Leveson?

Matthew Hancock: I have of course considered all the relevant evidence, including the representations from Sir Brian, and my judgment is that we need to concentrate on making sure we have sustainable, high-quality journalism in the future. The hon. Gentleman says that these matters are current, not historical, but the activities alleged in newspapers and by the BBC this morning are ones that they say ended in 2010, which means they are indeed historical.

Jenny Chapman: Does the Secretary of State not understand why I and my colleagues find it slightly odd that he should decline an inquiry on the basis that these things happened before 2010? By that logic, we would never have had the Iraq inquiry, the child abuse inquiry or the Bloody Sunday inquiry. By definition, inquiries examine events that have happened in the past.

Matthew Hancock: We have had an inquiry that investigated what happened in the past. It cost millions of pounds: a total of £48 million was spent, including on the police investigations. There were three separate police investigations and over 40 convictions. The issue of the gentleman mentioned this morning was raised in the Leveson inquiry. The idea that we need to have a new inquiry is actually undermined by today’s revelations, rather than supported. What matters is that we look forward to making sure that we have high-quality journalism and sustainable business models for it in the future.

Points of Order

Paul Farrelly: rose—

John Bercow: I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but I have another point of order first.

Barbara Keeley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In an oral statement on social care on 7 December 2017, the then care Minister, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price)—as it happens, she is in her place on the Front Bench at the moment—replied to a question I asked about the Government abandoning the carers strategy, which had been due to be published in summer 2017.  Of the thousands of carers who had responded to a consultation and then been left waiting, the Minister said:
“We have listened to them, and we will consider what they have said in bringing forward the Green Paper. In the meantime, it is very important to pull together exactly what support there is at present and then respond to that, and we will publish our action plan in January.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 1238-39.]
It is now March, and this is the second time I have raised this on a point of order. Not only do we no longer have any prospect of a carers strategy from the Government, but they have not met their own target to publish an action plan. That is a shabby way to treat carers. Mr Speaker, have you had any indication that the current Minister for Care or, indeed, any Health Minister plans to come to the House to update us on what, if anything, the Government propose to do for carers?

John Bercow: I have certainly not been advised of any intention on the part of a Minister to make an oral or, indeed, written statement to the House. There is a Health Minister on the Treasury Bench, who has heard what the hon. Lady said. She is welcome to respond if she wishes, but is under no obligation to do so.

Jackie Doyle-Price: indicated dissent.

John Bercow: Not at this time. I say to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who is an experienced denizen of the House, that there will be opportunities through the business question and subsequently for her to draw the attention of the House again, and perhaps in more detail, to her concerns and to elicit a ministerial reply.

Paul Farrelly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask your advice on how the House can put on the record its concern that the Conservative manifesto in 2017, with its promise to scrap Leveson 2 and section 40, pre-empted the results of a consultation that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was carrying out. How can we be sure, particularly given the comments of Sir Brian Leveson, that that decision was reached fairly and reasonably and will not be subject to judicial review?

John Bercow: I will say two things in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, he seeks and perhaps over-generously expects from me a degree of reassurance and  even of wisdom that it is not within the capacity of the Chair to provide. Secondly, in asking how we—meaning the House as a whole—can be sure, I simply say that the hon. Gentleman, who is no stranger to these matters, raises something of a philosophical question. Whether, when and to what degree Members can be confident of certainty are not matters that can be broached now from the Chair. However, in so far as he was seeking—as the puckish grin on his face suggests—to register his own concerns, he has found his own salvation.

Karen Lee: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Prime Minister’s Question Time on 31 January, I asked for a meeting with a Minister and was promised that I could have one. I received a letter two or three weeks ago saying that the matter had been passed to the Department of Health and Social Care. I seek your guidance—or anyone’s guidance, really—on how I can progress that, because I have had no meeting and no date so far. That was five weeks ago, so I think I have been fairly patient.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady has certainly been patient. Sometimes, raising a point of order in the Chamber and reminding those on the Treasury Bench of a promised meeting that has not yet been delivered can be a remarkably effective way of bringing about said meeting. The other device that I recommend to the hon. Lady, who is a new Member of the House, is the tabling of a written question. If she is interested in exploring historic copies of the Official Report, she will know that the former Member for Manchester, Gorton, our late and dear friend Sir Gerald Kaufman, was fond of highlighting unanswered correspondence to which he demanded a reply, unanswered questions to which he demanded a reply, or undelivered meetings that he had been promised and on which he still insisted by tabling written questions to remind Ministers of those matters and inquire when the promised reply or meeting would take place. In my experience, Sir Gerald was remarkably effective at obtaining such responses, as indeed was the former Member for Walsall North, Mr David Winnick. The hon. Lady may usefully learn from their and many other examples.

Alex Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In January, the Government announced plans to incentivise local communities to agree to explore the possibility of storing radioactive nuclear waste near their homes—an initiative that was widely reported in the media. I was anxious that it could revive proposals to store nuclear waste in the anhydrite mine under thousands of homes in Billingham in my constituency. I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions on 31 January. Sadly, the Prime Minister’s substitute that day, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, despite the publicity and it being Government policy, knew nothing about that initiative by his Government. However, he promised to investigate the matter and write to me. That was five weeks ago. Will you advise me whether it is unreasonable of me to have expected an answer by now?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me notice of it. It is not unreasonable for an hon. Member to expect a response from Ministers within five weeks. Ministerial correspondence is of course, as colleagues  will know, the responsibility of the Minister concerned. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who happens to be my constituency neighbour, is normally most courteous. I am sure that his colleagues on the Treasury Bench, including the representatives of the Patronage Secretary, will swiftly alert the right hon. Gentleman to this outstanding action. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) certainly should have had  a reply and he should now get one, sooner rather  than later. Meanwhile, he has placed his concern on  the record.

LOCAL HEALTH SCRUTINY

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Gareth Snell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about health scrutiny by local authorities, including scrutiny of clinical commissioning groups’ decisions; and for connected purposes.
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 introduced radical changes to the way in which healthcare was organised. Gone were the days of large primary care trusts and regional health authorities, and in came smaller, more focused, doctor-led clinical commissioning groups and, with each clinical commissioning group, a so-called accountable officer.
There are 207 CCGs in England. They are responsible for two thirds of all NHS spending, controlling £73.6 billion of taxpayers’ money. Decisions taken by CCGs affect elective hospital services, emergency and urgent care, community care and mental health support services. The principle of clinical commissioning groups—ensuring that the health services in our communities reflect the needs of our communities—is, on the face of it, sensible. However, as with all providers of public services and spenders of public money, they should be accountable to the public they seek to serve and the decisions they make should be available for public scrutiny. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve.
The present system of public scrutiny for decisions by clinical commissioning groups is opaque, cumbersome and impenetrable to most. It is all bound up in regulation 23(9) of the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013, which sets out that local authorities can refer decisions of clinical commissioning groups to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care where they believe that proper consultation on a service has not taken place or where they consider that
“the proposal would not be in the interests of the health service in its area.”
This all sounds very good, but in reality it is a “take it or leave it” scenario. Local authorities and their elected membership are not empowered to do anything other than accept a decision or escalate it straight to the Secretary of State. That binary approach does not make for good scrutiny, nor does it allow councillors and local authorities to be involved in helping CCGs to make better long-term decisions.
That is not the only flaw in the current scrutiny system. Should a local authority make a referral to the Secretary of State, it is immediately referred to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. However, since 2013 only 18 referrals have been received. The last four referrals, which were from Thurrock, Cumbria, the East Riding of Yorkshire and my own city of Stoke-on-Trent, saw almost a year pass between the referral to the Secretary of State being received and the report from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel being published. I am sure we would all agree that that is a totally unacceptable wait, during which clinical commissioning groups are free to implement the decision they have  taken despite it being subject to a referral. I do not believe anyone would see that scrutiny process as fair or robust.
The Bill seeks to impose a 45-day time limit between a referral being received by the Secretary of State and the Independent Reconfiguration Panel making a report. Crucially, it also seeks to put any decision referred to the Secretary of State on hold until such time as the Independent Reconfiguration Panel has made its deliberations. The Bill would go further by granting local authorities a new power to call in decisions of CCGs to their local health scrutiny committee and to compel accountable officers to properly consider the views of councillors before progressing with decisions. That would be no different from the mechanisms councils already have to challenge decisions regarding public health, which have been a function of local government since 2013.
Nowhere would that new power have been more welcome than in my own city of Stoke-on-Trent. For over two years now, the north Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent CCGs have been pursuing a flawed and deeply unpopular plan for decommissioning and closing community care beds. Beds in Longton Cottage Hospital, Bradwell Hospital, Leek Moorlands Hospital, Cheadle Hospital and Haywood Hospital have all been lost—more than 200 in total. A referral to the Secretary of State of the disastrous “My Care, My Way, Home First” plan, dreamt up by the accountable officer, Marcus Warnes, was proposed by Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire County Council, Staffordshire Moorlands District Council and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, but the referral took almost a year to be considered. I want to thank city councillor Joan Bell and county councillors Dave Jones and Charlotte Atkins, formerly of this place, for their help in achieving those referrals from the county and city councils.
During that year-long wait, however, Marcus Warnes carried on implementing the plan and closing much-needed community care beds. When the final report came back from the independent reconfiguration panel, it was scathing about the process. It said:
“The bed modelling presented in September 2015 has proved entirely incorrect and misleading.”
It also said:
“The circumstances of the NHS’s original decision not to consult about the closure of the Longton Hospital beds are unclear.”
The reconfiguration panel also said of Marcus Warnes’ consultation:
“It did not include any meaningful reference to the impact on community beds and hospitals.”
Frankly, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you or I, or for that matter any local councillor, was the subject of a report suggesting we had misled the public in the way we spent taxpayers’ money, we would be out of a job. I see no reason why Marcus Warnes should be any different. Rather than lose his job, however, he was appointed, against the wishes of the local authorities, as the single accountable officer for the whole of Staffordshire: a huge amount of power concentrated into an entirely unaccountable individual. In Staffordshire’s case, absolute power is leading to absolute chaos. Last week, 150 members of the Staffordshire “Care for All” campaign, led by Andy Day of the North Staffordshire Pensioners’ Convention, came to Parliament to press their case against community bed closures, because they do not have faith that the current scrutiny system is working.
That is just one example from Staffordshire, but there are many more, such as the botched privatisation of council care programmes and the CCG continuing to fine our local hospital millions of pounds for missed targets. Away from Stoke-on-Trent, there are other examples. My hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary exposed last week how 44 CCGs were paying GPs a bonus not to refer people to hospital. That is an example of CCGs implementing dangerous policies on the NHS without proper scrutiny or public support. Cash incentives based on how many referrals GPs make should have no place in patient care and should never be used.
Such practices should be blocked, and that is why the Bill is necessary. It will provide local accountability for the decisions that are taken by CCGs. It will provide new scrutiny powers to democratically elected councillors to rein in unaccountable CCG chief officers. It will ensure that local NHS services are scrutinised in the same way as council-provided public health services. The Bill will come too late to challenge the decisions in north Staffordshire or to support the 17 referrals that came before it, but it could help to ensure that future decisions by all CCGs are genuinely in the interests of the communities they are there to serve. There is still a lot more to do to return genuine accountability to the NHS, but the Bill would be a start.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Gareth Snell, Layla Moran, Jack Brereton, Jeremy Lefroy, Diana Johnson, Rosie Cooper, Mike Gapes and Ruth Smeeth present the Bill.
Gareth Snell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July, and to be printed (Bill 178).

OPPOSITION DAY - [UN-ALLOTTED DAY]OPPOSITION DAY

EUROPEAN UNION CITIZENSHIP

Hywel Williams: I beg to move,
That this House supports the maintenance of European Union citizenship rights for Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish and English citizens; notes that the range of rights and protections afforded to individuals as European Union citizens are integral to a person’s European identity; further notes that many of those rights are closely linked to the UK’s membership of the Single Market; and calls on the UK Government to ensure that the UK’s membership of the Single Market and UK citizens’ right to European Union citizenship are retained in the event that the UK leaves the EU.
Before I begin, may I apologise to the House? I have a very bad head cold that has rendered me slightly deaf, although that is perhaps no great disadvantage in this place. I caution any Member who intervenes that I might have some difficulty hearing them.
Our motion calls for UK nationals to retain European citizenship after we leave the European Union. The key word here is “retain”: we wish to retain what we already have. It is supported by a wide range of organisations and individuals: the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green party, Open Britain, Best for Britain, the European Movement, The New European, Cymru Dros Ewrop—Wales for Europe, New Europeans, Our Future Our Choice, Brand EU, UKtoStay.EU and Another Europe is Possible, as well as Jo Maugham, QC, of the Good Law Project, and Professor Volker Roeben and Dr Pedro Telles, two of the authors of a report on EU citizenship commissioned by my good friend Jill Evans, the Plaid Cymru MEP. Since the referendum, they have been arguing consistently for the retention of EU citizenship, and I recommend the report to anyone who wishes to pursue this argument. To the relief of hard-pressed Members, I can say that the executive summary is very good.
The crux of our argument is that although we are leaving the EU, the European citizenship rights conferred on UK citizens are not extinguished. Although we are leaving, those rights persist. Continuing Union citizenship is the more convincing interpretation of European and international law. Indeed, the principle that although a treaty might be bought to an end, the rights conferred by it are not extinguished, is enshrined strongly in international law. I refer Members to the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which will be binding on member states, the UK and the EU itself post Brexit. Article 70(1)(b) of that convention provides that “legal situations” created during the currency of the treaties continue after withdrawal.
As Professor Roeben et al say on page five of the report:
“This interpretation of the Convention, that ongoing situations and rights continue, is supported by the overriding objective of ensuring legal certainty and preventing withdrawals from treaties having any retroactive effect. It is also supported by state practice.”
That is a crucial aspect of international law. Governments withdrawing from treaties cannot just abandon the rights their citizens already have. Professor Roeben tells me, by the way, that this article, as with much international law, was drawn up with the prominent participation of British legal experts.
There is an alternative reading that article 50 extinguishes all rights of the individual created by the founding treaties. In that case, both EU and international law would demand that a treaty be negotiated on associate Union citizenship, bringing with it a bundle of rights that might be little different from those that come with full citizenship. One way or other, we believe that EU citizenship of a sort is required.
The EU could legislate on citizenship post Brexit. That legislation would protect UK nationals in the EU, but would have no binding effect on the UK—by definition, because we would have left. We therefore urge the Government to look to achieving continuity and associate citizenship through the withdrawal agreement. That is why today’s debate is particularly timely.
The report concludes that neither continuity nor associate citizenship would require any revision of the founding treaties. There is a great deal more detail in the report that I will not go into today, but it will become pertinent if the Government recognise the force of our argument and proceed as we recommend. For now, I wish to set the context for our party’s position and say plainly from the start that Plaid Cymru campaigned to stay in the European Union. This was consistent with our long-term pro-European policy—indeed, that has been our policy since our establishment in 1925.
We have always been aware of our European history and our nation’s European heritage and have set great store by it. That has influenced our party profoundly. Our long-time president, Gwynfor Evans, who was the Member for Carmarthen, would rarely miss the opportunity to remind the people of Wales of our European heritage and our 1,500-year history as a people with our own language and culture, from our immediate post-Roman beginnings onwards to the present day. In fact, his conference speeches would often consist of retelling our history. I am reminded of a small joke made by two valleys members during one of Gwynfor’s speeches. One said to the other, “Good God, this is 20 minutes in and we are only in the 9th century!”

Jonathan Edwards: My hon. Friend is making his usual excellent case when he leads these debates. We could go even further back to Saunders Lewis, who was the president before Gwynfor Evans. Saunders saw our European heritage as vital to his vision for Wales for the future, partly driven by his time in the trenches in the first world war and his desire not to see another generation of Welshmen die in the fields of foreign lands.

Hywel Williams: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I was going to refer later to the fact that the European Union has helped largely to prevent war on the European continents, although there are obvious exceptions, such as in the former Yugoslavia, which was not a member of the EU. He makes a pertinent point about Saunders Lewis, who had that profound experience in the trenches. It was one reason why he and his friends set up Plaid Cymru in August 1925 in my home town of Preseli, at a meeting of the Eisteddfod. While I am on my feet, I might as well also say that our profound lack of political realism at that time meant that in a country that was almost exclusively non-conformist, teetotal and in favour of the British empire, we had as our president a Francophile, wine-drinking Catholic—I think  Machiavelli is still rotating in his grave after that one, but there we are. The roots of our pro-European stance are very deep indeed.

Paul Masterton: Given that the hon. Gentleman’s party exists for the fundamental purpose of trying to remove British citizenship from the people of Wales—something that is of significantly more importance to them than their European identity—is his argument not a bit inconsistent?

Hywel Williams: I can only say, frankly, that my ambition and that of my hon. Friends is to ensure that Wales has an independent future. That may mean that we are reconciled to a British identity as a multiple identity for now, and hon. Members will know all about this—one can allegedly be Welsh and British, which is an argument that I hear from Members on both sides of the House, or Welsh and European, which is our argument. I certainly feel Welsh and European.

Liz Saville-Roberts: This goes to the crux of the argument. We are talking about our rights as individuals and the identity of individuals. I speak as a Londoner born and bred. I live in Wales and I claim Welsh nationality, and I am also proud of being European, but our rights as individuals are under threat. That is the point we have brought to the Chamber.

Hywel Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was going to go on to say that this is more than just a matter of self-ascribed identity. It is about the real practical matters of the rights to travel and work—the European rights that have benefited people in Wales and throughout the UK. There is an argument about identity, and I will talk about that in a moment, but I do not think that it has the force that the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) seemed to imply.
I was talking about Gwynfor Evans, who would often remind us of three pillars of Owain Glyndŵr’s policy during the 15th-century war of independence, as related to the King of France in the Pennal letter, which some people will have seen when it was on a visit to Aberystwyth some years ago. He said to the King of France that one of the central pillars was the need for a direct relationship with Rome for the Church in Wales—it was a very long time ago, and that was important then. It was about a direct relationship with the overarching European institution, rather than an indirect link mediated through Canterbury—some people will hear the echoes of the current situation in that policy.
By the way, the other two pillars of Glyndŵr’s policy were for Welsh to be the state language and for two universities to be established at a time when they were first being established across Europe by ambitious leaders. Some 600 years later, we have excellent universities in Wales. We are nearly there on the language issue, but on the European issue we are taking a serious step back.
From the start, my party took inspiration from continental developments of economic and social co-operation, as exemplified in the writings of D. J. Davies. We found European multilingualism far more congenial than the stifling monolingualism of so much of the UK’s public life. I say in passing that right hon. and hon. Members may not know that the most recent meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee was held here in Westminster with simultaneous translation. Half those  who spoke did so partly or wholly in Welsh. No one was hurt. Revolution did not break out. Hansard published what I think is its very first wholly bilingual record—I should mention that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) spoke in Welsh, and I congratulate him sincerely on his efforts—but that reflection of the actual linguistic condition common in these islands is still very much the remarked-upon exception, rather than the rule. That is not so over much of the rest of our continent.
Turning to present times, given our radical political stance, Plaid Cymru has always supported the growth and development of European policies beyond the narrow confines of the common market, which we initially joined. Ordinary people across the UK have derived so much benefit from those social, workforce and environmental policies, and EU citizenship is, for me, in that category. Importantly for our country, the EU has an overt regional economic cohesion policy, from which Wales has derived substantial additional funding. Of course, it is a cruel irony that we benefit thus only because of our poverty and our economy performing so badly, on a par with regions of the former Soviet bloc at the eastern end of the European Union.
In passing, I must also refer to other EU measures such as Interreg Europe, which promotes inter-regional contact between Wales and Ireland. Wales faces west as well as east, although many people, including Government Ministers, sometimes do not realise that. My colleague, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), used to say occasionally that Holyhead was east Dublin rather than north-west Anglesey. We have also benefited from the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and the Erasmus programme on student exchange, to name just three from which Wales along with other parts of the UK has benefited, and in respect of which, I say to the Minister, there is much concern, not least at our universities, and I mention my own, Bangor University.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: While the hon. Gentleman is on that subject, does he agree that it would be useful if the Government made an estimate of the amount of money that would have come to Wales from the European regional development fund and the European social fund in the 2021-27 tranche and promised that Wales will still receive the same amount of money or more?

Hywel Williams: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. As with so many things Welsh, we lack the basic statistical information and the basic projections. I know that the Government do not believe in experts, projections and forecasts, but I sometimes wonder on what they do depend. In Rome, they depended on examining the entrails of sacrificed animals—I do not know whether that is what they get up to—but he makes a serious point: if we knew what we were dealing with, we could make the argument more effectively.

Jonathan Edwards: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentions Erasmus and Horizon, two schemes whereby the Welsh Government could act bilaterally with the EU. Does he share my concern, arising from my discussions with colleagues in Brussels, that the Scottish Government seem far in advance of the Welsh Government in negotiating with the EU how those schemes could be continued in our respective nations?

Hywel Williams: That is a very good point. We have examined the bilateral agreements that other countries have with the EU. The Brexit Select Committee, of which I am a member, recently had the Swiss ambassador to the EU and Swiss experts before it discussing these bilateral agreements, and they are extremely useful for Switzerland; they are less useful, apparently, in the eyes of the EU, but my hon. Friend’s point is that other devolved Governments and Administrations have taken these matters further. I sincerely wish that our own Government would do the same.
I am drifting a little from the central question, which is the matter of European citizenship, to which I will now return. Many people listening will be thinking, “Didn’t Wales vote to leave the EU—if by a narrow margin?” Like many hon. Members, I continue to receive angry messages from Brexit supporters. The only one repeatable here is: “We’re leaving—get on with it.” I have a vast collection of others that are slightly less polite. We are indeed leaving—unless, of course, there is a sudden outbreak of common sense on the Government Benches—but it is not as simple as that. We are learning—even the Secretary of State for International Trade, who famously said that negotiating new trade deals with the EU would be the simplest thing in the world, is learning—to our cost that it is not that simple, and today’s motion is just one part of our efforts to salvage something from the wreckage of this slow-motion disaster.
For the benefit of my Brexiteering interlocutors, and as a Back-Bench MP responsible to my Arfon constituents, I want to note that all four Plaid Cymru constituencies voted to remain. This is in marked contrast to other Welsh constituencies that share our socioeconomic characteristics—marginalisation, poverty, powerlessness and low wages—but which are represented in this place by parties whose policies on the EU are, at best, a little less clear. Being broadly in favour of the EU, even in our present poor economic condition, is my Arfon constituents’ consistent view, as I will illustrate with a couple of points. First, in the 2015 general election, at the peak of UKIP support, 39 of Wales’ 40 constituencies swung to UKIP—the exception was Arfon, which swung to Plaid Cymru; and secondly, Arfon, I am proud to say, voted in the referendum to remain in the EU by a margin of 60:40.
We have valued our membership of the EU, including the economic support it has given us, and one aspect of this is valuing our European citizenship. The Welsh philosopher J. R. Jones, writing in the early 1960s and commenting on the then apparent terminal decline of the Welsh language, said something like this—I paraphrase in English for the benefit of the House:
“Leaving your country is a common and sometimes sad experience. But I know of something which is much more heart rending, for you could always return to your native land. And that is, not that you are leaving your country, but rather that your country is leaving you, being finally drawn away into the hands of another people, of another culture.”
J. R. Jones and many others inspired the next generation, including me, to campaign for the language, and as a result it is not threatened with extinction, for now at least. His insight is particularly telling today, in that for many, particularly of the younger generation, leaving the EU is just such a heart-rending experience.

Christine Jardine: I found that quote particularly moving, having found in my constituency and, indeed, my own family, young people  who know nothing more than being part of the EU. We are taking their identity away from them and, indeed, from ourselves, because for 40 years we have known nothing else than being proud Europeans.

Hywel Williams: That is exactly the point I intend to make.
Many young people told me after the referendum that the result had been a profound emotional shock, an assault on the very foundations of their personal identities as Europeans, one telling me that she had been in floods of tears. They told me how they regretted losing key practical rights—this is not just an emotional identity matter—such as the right to travel without hindrance within the EU and the unqualified right to work and to study in other European countries. Today the UK Government have an opportunity to heal some of these divisions—intergenerational divisions and divisions between all peoples of these islands, particularly, as we have heard, in Ireland.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern that many of these young people now coming of age, who will be most directly affected by our leaving the EU, had no say whatsoever. From year to year, this situation is worsening.

Hywel Williams: My hon. Friend makes a telling point to which I will return in a moment and which is covered by the two aspects of citizenship that we are proposing. The first concerns continuing citizenship for those of us who are citizens of the EU now by means of a bilateral treaty. The second concerns those who, being unborn, cannot access that citizenship—this is a matter for our children and our children’s children. Particularly acute, however, for me at least, is the position of those aged 14, 15 and 16 who understood the issues in the referendum but were unable to vote. I should say in passing that my party has always been in favour of reducing the voting age to 16, which would have made a considerable difference to the result.
As I said, today the UK Government have an opportunity to heal some of these divisions. This is a positive point from the Plaid Cymru Benches, and I hope that the Government see it in that light. We are calling on them to secure and retain our right to European citizenship and not to take away what is already rightfully ours, so that we might leave the EU with just a little less self-inflicted injury.
We are European citizens, although I have to confess that I am biased: I am married to a European citizen—she is from Llanelli. She likewise is married to a European citizen—I am from Pwllheli. I do not want to labour the point, but we are both Welsh and European. I am therefore biased, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) said, so are our many friends and colleagues who have chosen to live and work in Wales and become Welsh, but not by rejecting their European citizenship or identity. To quote Gwynfor Evans again:
“Anyone can be Welsh, so long as you are prepared to take the consequences.”
That is our definition of citizenship. The citizens of Wales are those who are committed. I would commend that as a general definition of civic identity—I suppose I should say “civic nationalism”, but perhaps I should let that pass.

Joanna Cherry: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his Plaid Cymru colleagues on securing this debate and I am very much looking forward to giving the Scottish National party’s fraternal address to their conference in a couple of weeks. Does he agree that the Welsh nationalism that he and his colleagues espouse is very much like Scottish nationalism, in that it is outward looking and internationalist, and that all that our parties want is for our countries to be nation states with a seat at the top table in the EU, wielding the kind of power that the Republic of Ireland is currently wielding?

Hywel Williams: I agree entirely. As I said, my definition of identity, be it Welsh, English, Scottish, Northern Irish or whatever, is that it is self-ascribed—it is something that someone claims. That is why my party has such members as my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, who comes from London—born in Eltham, I think—but is entirely Welsh and Welsh speaking. That is probably a consequence of marrying someone from Blaenau Ffestiniog, where no quarter is given or expected, but the point is that we have people in our party who come from all over the world, and long may that remain the case—we have no exclusive definition.
As I have said, Gwynfor said, a very long time ago:
“Anyone can be Welsh, so long as you are prepared to take the consequences.”
Those consequences, for us as European citizens, are that we have wide rights to travel, live work and study anywhere in the EU. European citizenship also gives us rights under EU law in respect of health, education, work, and social security, as well as the right to be free of discrimination based on nationality—which, I think, is relevant to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. The assumption so far on both sides, the EU and the Government, is that EU citizenship will lapse at the point of our exit from the European Union. However, EU citizenship did not replace UK citizenship when it came into force. It is additional: the two continue to co-exist, and leaving the EU does not entail the end of EU citizenship for UK citizens.
Unfortunately, the Government, by default, are intent on taking away something that is of significant value to the people of these islands. They should not do so. In fact, they should make the retention of EU citizenship an important central plank of future negotiations. It is something that we can ask—demand—of the European Union; it is something that it is in its power to give, and something that would be valued by our citizens. It would benefit us all, not least by establishing a common status for all EU citizens who live here, including those with Irish heritage and the 3 million or so people who have moved here from EU member states. It would establish a level playing field.
There was a glimmer of hope last year when, on 2 November, Bloomberg reported the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union as saying that the UK was—in the words of its headline—
“Open to Talking About Associate Citizenship After Brexit”
—which came as a surprise to some people—
and that that would allow “visa-free working rights” to UK nationals. The Secretary of State said:
“We’ll listen to anything of this nature. The aim of this exercise is to be good for Europe, good for Britain, and that means good for the citizens of Europe and Britain.”
I also note that the Prime Minister said in her statement on Monday that
“UK and EU citizens will still want to work and study in each other’s countries, and we are open to discussions about how to maintain the links between our people.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2018; Vol. 637, c. 26.]
Perhaps I am over-interpreting, but that seems to me to be potentially code for associated citizenship. We shall see how things develop, but for me it had the flavour of a “get out of jail free” card.
Today I am arguing for maintaining the status quo. We are European citizens and will continue to be so, but obviously I urge the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister even now to pursue their less ambitious line further. For those who ask for a precedent for EU citizenship—and some have asked me for one—I point to the situation when Ireland became a free state. The UK allowed Irish citizens to retain their UK citizenship then, and indeed, as Brexit problems and contradictions have closed in, the Government—from the Prime Minister down—have been lavish in their praise for the arrangements between the Irish Republic and the UK. That is a model of which they approve.
Earlier, I mentioned people of Irish heritage. It is little remarked upon, but those with a qualifying link with any part of the entire island of Ireland through either family or residence—even a short residence in Northern Ireland—can apply for an Irish passport. That applies to millions of British people, including my neighbour Miss Norah Davies, whose passport application I was happy to sign some weeks ago. Her passport has now arrived, much to her satisfaction. I caution Ministers not to tangle with angry older citizens; they do so at their peril. Norah Davies’s link with Ireland through her mother reaches back to the first part of the last century. My link, alas, petered out two generations before hers, and I therefore do not qualify.

Gregory Campbell: There is a little-known anomaly which I and others have been trying to address, and to which the hon. Gentleman alluded inadvertently a moment ago. When the Irish Republic, or the Irish free state as it was then, left the Commonwealth in 1949, the British Government of the time allowed those who had been born in the Republic and had moved to Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the UK to retain their British citizenship. Nowadays, those who were born in the Republic and live in Northern Ireland cannot obtain British passports, although people who have never been to the Republic can obtain Irish passports. In terms of UK citizenship, those people are still somewhat disadvantaged. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is talking about EU citizenship, but given his allusion, does he agree that that needs to be addressed?

Hywel Williams: I must confess that I was entirely unaware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If that is indeed the case, I think that it bears more examination, and I should be interested to discuss it with him further.
I was talking about Irish citizens and those of Irish extraction. There is a certain serendipity in the fact that UK-Irish citizens have those rights on the basis of one  grandparent while the rest of us do not. There will be people like me with British citizenship, people of Irish extraction with Irish citizenship, Irish people with Irish citizenship who live, work and vote here, and EU citizens with a certain status, whatever that may be. There is a certain randomness about the whole arrangement, which would in some respects be addressed by an overarching European citizenship. I fear that that serendipity will inevitably become more pressing when those with the favoured passports join the short queue at holiday airports while their less fortunate neighbours wait in the “others” line. It will have hit us a bit harder by then.
The Government say that they want a close relationship with our EU partners. That is their ambition, cited over and over again. They now have a practical opportunity to support that relationship through continuation citizenship for current British EU citizens, and, for all those who will not be EU citizens at the point of our leaving—that is, the unborn—a future status through associate EU citizenship.
So far the debate has been dominated by trade issues, the divorce bill and the Irish border—those are the issues with which we have been grappling for many months—but many Brexit promises before the referendum had an individualistic quality. People felt that they were being promised something individually. We would be richer and have better services, not least through having an extra £350 million every week to spend on the NHS. Promises such as that persuaded people, along with, of course, the immigration issue.

Liz Saville-Roberts: We were also promised that we would be freer, with all the implications of independence. We are having to discuss this issue today because we must face the fact that we are unlikely to be so free.

Hywel Williams: The paradox has not escaped me.
Here is a chance for the Government to redeem themselves partially by securing for all UK individuals in the future that which they already have: UK and European citizenship. That would be popular. According to research findings published last year by the LSE and Opinium, six out of 10 people want to keep their EU citizenship. Support for retaining rights is particularly strong among 18 to 24-year-olds, 85% of whom want to retain their EU citizenship. They are the generation, more than any other, that will have to deal with the long-term fallout from Brexit over the coming decades, and to deal practically and emotionally with the loss of their firm expectation of continuing EU citizenship. Many members of that generation did not have a vote in the referendum, although they will be profoundly affected by its consequences—unless, of course, the Government take heed of our argument today. Thankfully, it is not my responsibility to drum up support for the Conservatives, but were the Government just to look to their own enlightened self-interest, they would see that at least one path is clear from the debate. If they will not do so, can we at least expect the Labour party to see where its interest lies, to support the motion, and to protect our people’s rights?
I am advised by wiser heads that there would be no new treaty requirements, so now is the time for the Government to give a clear and practical sign that they  are taking UK citizens’ rights seriously—not by withdrawing our rights without our explicit consent, but by securing European Union citizenship for all, not just the random few. What is needed now, and what is currently lacking, is vision and clear political leadership to mend some of the divisions that Brexit has opened up. In the Prime Minister’s own words last Monday,
“let us get on with it.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2018; Vol. 637, c. 28.]

Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for his typically thoughtful comments, and also congratulate him on having managed to get through his entire speech with a very difficult throat—which I thought improved as time went on.
I welcome this opportunity to debate the Government’s policy on EU citizenship after the UK leaves the European Union. EU citizens in the UK make a significant contribution to our national life and we want them and their families to stay.
From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has been clear that safeguarding the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU was her first priority for our negotiations. We have now delivered on that commitment and have reached an agreement with our EU partners on citizens’ rights. The agreement was set out as part of a joint report issued on 8 December; it provides the millions of EU and UK citizens living in the UK and the EU respectively with certainty about their future rights, and, most importantly, allows them and their families to carry on their lives broadly as they do now.
The agreement will protect citizens who have been exercising free movement rights at the time of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. All family members living lawfully with a qualifying citizen at this point are also protected, and close family members can continue to join qualifying citizens on EU law terms after exit. We have agreed with the EU that we will introduce a new settled status scheme under UK law for EU citizens and their family members covered by the agreement. Those who have already had five years of continuous residence in the UK will be eligible to apply for settled status. Others will be able to remain in the UK to build up their five years’ residence.
The scheme, which will open for applications by the end of 2018, is being designed and built from scratch. The application system will be streamlined and user-friendly, and will draw on existing Government data to minimise the burden on applicants to provide evidence. We are engaging with stakeholders who represent EU citizens in the UK, as well as separate diaspora groups in the UK, to discuss and understand their needs for the settlement scheme. I thank those who have already participated and shown willingness to engage, particularly the EU ambassadors who have beaten a path to my door to explain how they can assist. Our next priority is to turn the December agreement into binding legal text for the withdrawal agreement.

Stephen Gethins: I thank the Minister for what she said on EU nationals. However, in common with many other Members, I have had a large number of EU nationals approach me who are worried about certainty. I have the military base of  Leuchars in my constituency and those who have German wives, for instance, still do not have certainty. I know the Minister might not be able to answer this today, but please will she look into that, particularly for military families?

Caroline Nokes: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, particularly for military families, who move around a great deal and for whom it might be harder to demonstrate living in one particular place. We are determined to make sure this scheme has a default position of accepting that people are EU citizens living here, and we want there to be a default “Yes” for settled status, and certainly not a default “No.”
We have been clear that we will seek to agree an implementation period beyond March 2019 of around two years. The purpose of such a period is to give people, business and indeed our own public services in the UK and across the EU the time they need to put in place the new arrangements that will be required to adjust to our future partnership. It will take time to implement a new immigration framework.

Jonathan Edwards: I fear the Minister might have misunderstood the topic for debate. We are aiming to discuss the issue of the European citizenship of UK subjects, as opposed to the rights of EU citizens.

Caroline Nokes: I am going to move on to the points the hon. Member for Arfon made, and perhaps the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) will indulge me by allowing me to get there.
As I was about to say, during the implementation period, which will be time-limited, people will be able to come to the UK to live and work as they do now, and this will be reciprocal, meaning UK nationals will also be able to travel to live and work in the EU.
Last week, the Home Secretary published a position paper setting out that EU citizens arriving during the implementation period should be able to work towards settlement in the UK. People arriving during this period should not have the same expectations as those who arrived during our membership of the EU, but it is right that we set out the rules that will apply to these individuals when this period ends, to provide them with the certainty they need. These rights will be enforceable in UK law, and we will not seek to include them in the withdrawal agreement; however, we will discuss this with the Commission in the coming weeks.
Turning more broadly to the question of EU citizenship, the Government have been clear that our membership of the EU will end on 29 March 2019. We are content to listen to proposals from the EU on associate citizenship for UK nationals. However, to date this has not been formally proposed to the UK in the negotiations. EU treaty provisions state that only citizens of EU member states are able to hold EU citizenship. Therefore, when the UK ceases to be a member of the European Union, UK nationals will no longer hold EU citizenship unless they hold dual nationality with another member state.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Does the right hon. Lady not agree that we are talking about an interpretation of the law as it stands and a matter of political will? We would  be begging the Government to bring this matter, as the right of individual citizens of the United Kingdom, into negotiations as we move forward with Brexit?

Caroline Nokes: As I said just a moment ago, the Government position is that we are very happy to discuss this specific issue, but we must do so reflecting on the law as it currently stands, and the position in law is very clear: once we have left the EU, citizens living here will no longer be resident in an EU member state.
The Prime Minister has been clear, and she reinforced this message in her speech on Friday, that we are seeking the broadest and deepest possible future partnership with the EU, and that a key part of that is maintaining the links between our people. We are clear that, as we leave the EU, free movement of people will come to an end and we will control the number of people who come to live in our country, but UK citizens will still want to work and study in EU countries, just as EU citizens will want to do the same here, which is why the Prime Minister is putting the interests of EU and UK citizens at the heart of her approach, and we are open to discussing how to facilitate these valuable links.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: First, may I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for the considered way in which he opened the debate? I also wish him a speedy recovery from the heavy cold he has been suffering from, and congratulate him on getting to the end of his speech.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I am afraid that the weakness at the heart of the Government’s position—whether on EU citizenship in the future, the rights of EU citizens in this country, or indeed immigration more generally—is the failure of the Government to bring proposed legislation before this House. I start with the immigration Bill which was originally scheduled to be published last summer. The Home Secretary said last October to the House and the Home Affairs Committee that there would be an immigration White Paper by the end of last year and a Bill early this year. The then immigration Minister—not the right hon. Lady, but her predecessor the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis)—told the Committee in November that a White Paper would be produced soon. The right hon. Lady told this House on 5 February that there would be a White Paper
“when the time is right”.—[Official Report, 5 February 2018; Vol. 635, c. 1211.]
She then said on 26 February that there would be a White Paper in due course. That is simply not good enough to deal with an issue of this seriousness.
Words are very important, not just the various contorted phrases the Government have used to justify their inaction, but also remarks made about the status of our existing EU citizens, and the reported comments of the International Trade Secretary that the
“uncertain status of EU nationals living in the UK is ‘one of our main cards’ in the Brexit negotiations.”
That is a matter of great regret.

Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend agree that many companies rely on their employees travelling, often at very short notice? I am thinking of Airbus—a certain number of people from this country  will just hop on a plane to Toulouse or Bremen to finish the work if a wing is not finished. Things like that need to be considered owing to the potential effect on future investment choices that such companies will make.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It comes as no surprise that the deputy director general of the CBI, no less, has said of this Tory Government that he is “hugely frustrated” by their lack of progress on an immigration Bill.
EU citizens are our friends, our colleagues and our neighbours. They are people on whose doors we knocked in the general election last year. When people are making a positive contribution to our economy, our national health service, which already has issues with recruitment, social care, our universities and other sectors, the Government’s continuing failure to legislate only highlights the fact that they could have done so much unilaterally a long time ago. The Minister referred to the phase 1 agreement, which I have in front of me, and the continuing uncertainty mentioned by the hon. Member for Arfon remains an issue. Paragraph 34 of the agreement is clear:
“Both Parties agree that the Withdrawal Agreement should provide for the legal effects of the citizens’ rights Part both in the UK and in the Union. UK domestic legislation should also be enacted to this effect.”
Where is the legislation? It should be brought forward as soon as possible.
We now know that nothing will be agreed in the negotiations until everything is agreed. We also know, because the Immigration Minister told the House a few weeks ago, that the Migration Advisory Committee has been asked
“to advise on the economic aspects of the UK’s exit”
by September, and I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), is nodding. The Immigration Minister then said that there was
“plenty of time to take account of the MAC’s recommendations in designing the longer-term immigration system for the UK.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2018; Vol. 635, c. 1212.]
She says “plenty of time” but this is a two-year Parliament, and she has until March 2019 to get legislation on the statute book. Time is of the essence. If I take the Minister at her word that we will have the legislation when the time is right, may I gently suggest that that time might be now? She attends the Cabinet in her role as Immigration Minister, and she needs to persuade the Cabinet to give her the time to bring the legislation before this House. While it is my view and that of the Opposition that the status of EU nationals in this country should have been dealt with unilaterally a long time ago, not left subject to negotiation in this way—nor should there ever have been the reported comments of the International Trade Secretary that people be used as bargaining chips—the Minister could act now, and act she should.
I welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Arfon, and the Minister said that it would be considered, and we must be careful about not excluding options from the table as we go forward. None the less, I suggest to the Minister, as she tries to put together the whole gamut of immigration policy for this country post-Brexit,  that in order to achieve a fair, managed and efficient policy she must look at this country’s economic needs and work with business and the trade unions.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I congratulate him on his speech. However, would it be Labour party policy to support our proposal for associate citizenship?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I have just said that we should not take any options off the table. I always welcome contributions from the hon. Gentleman, and I look forward to the Government’s response—[Interruption.] I will certainly give the hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) my position on a number of matters in a moment, but let me make another point first.
Perhaps the Tory party could repair its relationship with the CBI if it properly consulted business and the unions about our future immigration system. It could end the years of exploitation of migrant workers, which it has done so little about, increase the number of prosecutions for breaches of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, which have been going on for far too long, reinstate the migrant impact fund, remove international students from the statistics and, perhaps above all, move away from this obsession with bogus immigration targets. The Tories have never achieved their numerical target, despite having promised it over three general elections.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but it does not relate to the motion, which is about the future rights of UK citizens. There is an interesting discussion to be had about the rights of EU citizens coming into the UK, but that is for another debate.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I have responded to the point made from the hon. Member for Arfon about that. I appreciate the narrow point about UK citizens going forward, but this is a broad debate and I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to lose the opportunity to put such matters to the Minister, as I am seeking to do.
I conclude by saying that an unconditional commitment on the rights of EU citizens in this country could have been made already. It can still be offered, and the Government should move away from their obsession with numbers and restore confidence in our immigration system.

Matt Warman: It is a pleasure to be called so early in this debate and to be given a window into the world of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). It is a privilege, and I am enjoying it very much. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) opened this debate by saying that his party has been shaped by the issue of Europe, and I say to him that it takes one to know one. The Conservative party has also been shaped by Europe, and my constituency has perhaps been shaped to a greater extent by Europe than almost any other.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman focus not on EU citizens’ rights in this country, but on the reciprocal rights for UK citizens. However, I am afraid that I will  disappoint him to some extent, as others have, by focusing on the rights of EU citizens, although not entirely, because it is only fair to rebut some of what has been said recently. The Government brought in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to combat some of the issues that have just been talked about, and we brought in the controlling migration fund at triple the level of the migration impact fund that was praised by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). We should therefore not be ashamed of what we have achieved for the rights of migrant workers.
I should acknowledge the thoughtful issues of identity that the hon. Member for Arfon opened the debate with, because although my constituency may indeed have voted to leave the European Union more resoundingly than any other, it has to some extent been shaped by citizens of the European Union perhaps more than anywhere else. We have streets in Boston that are populated with shops that would otherwise be empty and are entirely focused on our new eastern European communities. That means that we are uniquely attuned to the issues of identity that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Let us think about why a constituency like mine voted so strongly. It was not a rejection of those EU rights nor of EU citizens as individuals. I do not wish to re-run the referendum again—not least because I was on a different side from my constituents—but it was not a rejection of those individuals. It was a rejection of a migration policy that had not worked for a constituency such as mine and of an approach that had been taken, in the minds of many of my constituents, by Brussels over many years that did not reflect the best interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about identity, I hope he bears it in mind that far more of my constituents have married into the communities that have arrived than is the case elsewhere. They have often formed relationships and have children in school—schools where pupils have one parent from England and one from a European Union country. That sense of identity is uniquely altered by the migration policy he talks about, and it means that my constituents have, if not a unique, perhaps a greater desire than others to be able to visit Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and all those countries with which we benefit from reciprocal rights.
None of my voters voted for British driving licences to no longer be valid on the continent or for us no longer to have the reciprocal rights we have enjoyed for so long. We, as a country, have had a full and blossoming relationship with Europe, and we would all acknowledge it is in the interests of both Europe and the UK to secure many of those things for the future. We should pay tribute to the negotiating position the Prime Minister set out last week in a pragmatic, sensible bid to try to secure some of the rights that the hon. Gentleman talked about.
We should also acknowledge that people voted in the referendum for a different set of circumstances after we leave, which inevitably means that we have to consider what those differences might look like. The Minister is right to say that the starting point has to be that we will no longer have precisely those rights in law when we leave. It is in tune with the Prime Minister’s pragmatic approach to say that we have to acknowledge that that is the case, and we have to ensure that we get the best possible outcome at the end of these negotiations.

Gregory Campbell: The hon. Gentleman talks about people’s view that there would be changed circumstances. Given the votes in a plethora of nation states within the EU, not least in Italy at the weekend, who knows what changes will come in the very institution we are talking about? Does he agree that in future the EU might not be as people envisage it at the moment?

Matt Warman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that this is a moveable feast on the other side of the channel, and we should bear that in mind.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman raises a point made by the Minister, on whom I wished to intervene. He will be aware of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties and that, under that legal ruling, citizens’ rights may not be lost. Surely that is the legal precedent we should be following.

Matt Warman: The hon. Gentleman uses the word “may,” and we should be looking at what the options are and at what the precedents may be. The Minister is right to say that we will no longer be members when we leave, and therefore we will no longer have the rights we currently have. The hon. Gentleman may pray in aid precedents that suggest something else, and we may be able to rely on some of those precedents in due course. We should not prejudge any of that, and we have to be pragmatic in where we start.
It is also worth bearing in mind that people across my constituency and across the country voted for precisely those kinds of differences. They voted for the Government to negotiate a new relationship with Europe, which is precisely what we are doing.
One aspect of the motion on which the hon. Member for Arfon did not particularly dwell is single market access, which defines a huge part of our relationship with the EU. This is not a fault that he committed, but it is a frustrating and patronising element of some aspects of this debate to say that people did not know what they were voting for when they voted in the referendum. My constituents were very clear that they were voting to leave the single market because they were voting to strike our own trade deals with other countries across the world and to open up new opportunities. We should not allow ourselves to pretend there was not a full and frank debate about what leaving the European Union might mean before people went into the polling booths.
A crucial part of the motion implies there are not the opportunities outside the EU that people voted for. The hon. Gentleman frames it as though all we will be doing is losing rights when we leave the European Union. We should, of course, bear in mind that there will be a different relationship, but there are opportunities out there, too. Part of the Prime Minister’s positive approach is to say that there are opportunities that we must seize and that there is another side to the coin—that not everyone can have every single thing they might wish for.
The hon. Gentleman proposed that we could stay in the single market and retain all our rights as they are today. My response to him is that he should not be wilfully blind to the opportunities. I think we will get a good deal with the European Union that allows us to retain many of the benefits we see today, but we will also have access to a wider world out there in a very different way. That is not to say that it will all be a bed  of roses and that it will be the easiest thing we could ever do, but he should acknowledge the other side of the coin.

Hywel Williams: I am an optimist by nature, but how does the hon. Gentleman respond to the observation last week that we are exchanging a three-course meal for the promise of a bag of crisps?

Matt Warman: I do not want to say that we can have our cake and eat it, but we can have a three-course meal and a bag of crisps. It is always tempting for one side of the argument to say it will all be brilliant and for the other side of the argument to say it will all be terrible. The reality is that, neither at this time of day nor at any other, I do not much fancy a three-course meal and a bag of crisps at the same moment, but there is a compromise somewhere in the middle, which is what we will be seeking.
Whether we represent constituencies such as mine or constituencies with far lower levels of migration, we have all heard the huge concern among EU citizens living in this country about what their status might be. We should accept it is the genuine and proven intention of the Prime Minister to seek to provide reassurance as soon as possible in the debate, but we should also bear in mind—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not doing this at he opened the debate—that the more we talk about those concerns, the more we fall into the trap of whipping up those concerns and the more we worry people who should not be worried. It is not only unfair on them, but it is irresponsible of us if we do that.
A number of constituents have come to tell me they are concerned both that they might not be able to travel as easily to the home country of their boyfriend or girlfriend, or that they may not be able to stay in this country. I have been pleased to be able to provide them with some reassurance, but I have not had tens of thousands of people coming to me to make that point because I have not stirred up such feelings. I am pleased the hon. Gentleman did not do so in his speech, although not so pleased that I will be supporting the motion today.
This has been a uniquely thoughtful debate, notwithstanding my own contribution, and it is a pleasure to be part of a debate on Brexit that is not as high octane and unhelpful as some we have seen, and that has not produced more heat than light. Perhaps this sets a precedent for how we might continue the negotiations.

Stephen Gethins: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for opening the debate. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) and I may not agree on everything, but he makes a good point about trying to have a thoughtful debate, which is what we are having today. I thank him for his contribution, and I particularly thank Plaid Cymru for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject.
As a number of Members have argued, the importance of EU nationals to the UK should not and cannot be overestimated in terms of their financial contribution and, more important, how they enrich our society by  being here. I want to live in a society that is made more diverse and enriched by their presence, as is the case in my constituency and others.
Today’s debate is particularly helpful because it gives us the opportunity to discuss our own EU citizenship, which we continue to enjoy for the time being. I hope that the Government will give consideration to the idea of associate citizenship suggested by the hon. Member for Arfon, because the benefits of EU membership work both ways—a point that was often lost during the referendum campaign. We look set to lose the huge range of benefits we receive as EU citizens, and nothing the UK Government have said in this debate or others reassures me that they are on top of plugging the gap that will necessarily appear if we are taken out of the European Union.
I have benefited personally from freedom of movement. I was able to work elsewhere in the European Union and receive the benefits of healthcare. I studied there and took part in the Erasmus scheme because of my European citizenship. If I felt ill when I was living in Belgium, I could use the hospitals—there was absolutely no question about or problem with that—and anybody who visited me had exactly the same rights. I feel every inch a European in my identity. I know that identity is not the main driver of this debate, but we should think about it. Even more than that, however, I value my European citizenship.
As I reflect on my own personal experience, one thing that depresses me about where we are going is that by the end of this Parliament, perhaps uniquely, young people will have fewer opportunities and fewer rights than those of us who sit in this Parliament have enjoyed. We should all reflect on that. Regardless of who is in government and which parties make up this place, it should be—indeed, I think it is—the aspiration of all of us that at the end of any Parliament, young people should have more and better opportunities than those who went before them. That should always be our goal, but through the removal of EU citizenship, we will be taking a backward step. Young people will have fewer opportunities. Retaining citizenship would help. I do not think it would plug the gap entirely, but it would help.
The Minister said that she was waiting for the European Union to come up with some ideas about associate EU citizenship, but the European Union did not get us into this mess in the first place; the UK Government did. The fact that, almost two years on, they are still waiting for the EU to come up with solutions tells us a great deal about the state of affairs in the UK Government. It is incumbent on them to look at our problems and meet the challenges. Members are suggesting plenty of ideas—I do not agree with all of them, and neither will everyone else—and the Government should do more than adopt a wait-and-see policy almost two years on from the referendum.
Gently and in a comradely spirit, I urge the Labour party to do the same, especially on issues such as associate membership. I agreed with much of what the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), said, but I encourage him to look a little more deeply into that issue, because we should be addressing it in this Parliament.
There are a lot of gaps to be filled. It strikes me—I have made this point before—that it is not entirely the Government’s fault. Vote Leave campaigned on a blank  piece of paper, as has been said a number of times in this Chamber. That is why we still have so many gaps. It is the responsibility of this place to fill some of those gaps, working with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations and local authorities and with other stakeholders. It was an act of gross irresponsibility by Vote Leave not even to bother having a manifesto or a White Paper, which means that we have to fill in the gaps.
In his thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness referenced the single market. Vote Leave and the leavers should have been very clear that we would be leaving the single market. They were not. It is possible—I direct this as much to those on the Labour Front Bench as to those on the Government Front Bench—to leave the European Union and remain in the single market. That is a fact—end of story. That is something that we can do. It is quite depressing that many of us have to keep on saying that. I cannot believe that we have to use up time in the House of Commons to reiterate that fact.

Matt Warman: The hon. Gentleman is factually correct, but the tenor of the campaign that was fought—and I was on the other side of it—was that there would be a clean break with the European Union. In that spirit, does he not think that that means being able to do our own trade deals and leaving the single market?

Stephen Gethins: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with him. No, that is not what it means. He mentions the Government implementing policy in the spirit of how the campaign was conducted, but we have a very different Government with very different policies after the 2017 general election, which was, in the Prime Minister’s own words, a Brexit general election.

Anna Soubry: It is generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way. Is he aware that in the past few hours Donald Tusk has made it absolutely clear that the choice that this Government now face is whether to stay in the single market and customs union or to have a free trade arrangement? Just 52% voted to leave and I can assure Members that nobody who voted leave in my constituency voted for that, especially given the Government’s own assessment. This must be the first Government ever in the history of our country to admit that, even if we got what the Prime Minister wants, a free trade agreement will make this country less prosperous. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is the stuff of madness?

Stephen Gethins: The right hon. Lady makes an excellent point.
The Scottish Government have published their analysis of what will happen if we leave the single market for a free trade deal, and it is striking that reports show that it would have a devastating impact on our economy. It looks like the same is true of the UK Government’s analysis. They must acknowledge that and publish the analysis. At least the Scottish Government have published theirs. If GDP declines, that will be devastating for our public services. I am glad that the Scottish Government have raised taxes very slightly for a minority of the population protect public services, but that is a drop in the ocean compared with what a hit to GDP will mean for our economy, the NHS, education and other public services.

Stephen Doughty: rose—

Stephen Gethins: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gives way, I appreciate that he is illustrating his points, but I hope he will soon return to the point of EU citizens, because this motion is fairly narrow. It is important to bear that in mind. He may now give way.

Stephen Doughty: I note your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker. Key in the motion is the issue of the single market, and the hon. Gentleman knows that I fully support our remaining in it. He will recall that the Brexit Secretary said that we would get the “exact same benefits”, but that is patently not going to be the case. I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman was saying, as I too have been to see those Treasury papers, and they are clear that we will be worse off in every scenario. That is not the “same benefits”, be they for citizens, for our businesses or for our country.

Stephen Gethins: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and it is why today’s debate on associate citizenship is so important and why I am so glad it has been brought forward.
I will talk a little about Scotland’s own experiences—you will be well aware of this, Madam Deputy Speaker. This idea of European citizenship is not a new concept that arose in the 1970s; it is a historical one. It is said that in 1295 Scots looked at the idea of dual citizenship with the French as part of the auld alliance. If we go down the Corridors through to the House of Lords, we see the English Tudor monarchs on the wall, along with the Scots Tudor monarchs, some of whom were French—the Dauphin of France at that time is up on the wall there. If we look at the rights of Scots traders as citizens in places such as Veere in the Netherlands, we see that a former Member of this House, Winnie Ewing, was the honorary conservator of the privileges of the Scottish staple of Veere back in the day. Going back even further, to the letter of Lubeck, we see that the first thing that William Wallace did after the battle of Stirling bridge and Scottish independence was to get back in touch with our European partners, because this idea of citizenship—this idea of working together and that Scotland is a European nation—does not go back just to the 1970s; it goes back many hundreds of years. I will move on from that point, but I encourage Members to read and listen to the works of my constituent Billy Kay, who has been excellent on the impact of the Scottish diaspora elsewhere in Europe.

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating speech, but he is illustrating the point beautifully that our European identities, whether we are English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, relate to our relations in Europe, not with the European Union.

Stephen Gethins: As usual, the Minister leads me nicely on to my next point: this is about more than history and identity. I hope that at some point he will be able to tell us how we will replicate these ideas of  citizenship and the benefits we have as citizens—our right to study, to work and to travel, our right to healthcare and our human rights that derive from our European citizenship. One Member made the good point about people who work here being able to work elsewhere at short notice. That goes to the heart of European citizenship, and it is why I am so grateful to the Minister, as usual, for intervening on that point.
The value to our economy of European citizenship is crucial. I think of the academics at the University of St Andrews, who can go to work and collaborate with their partners elsewhere in Europe, but it works in both directions: I think of farmers such as the one next door to me, James Orr, who relies on seasonal workers to pick his broccoli, which must still be picked by hand. The Minister for Immigration talked about certainty. I have heard other Ministers say that EU nationals should now feel a sense of certainty in their citizenship, but my postbag tells a different story, as, I suspect, do the postbags of other Members. That is why I raised the point about military families, but we must also keep in mind other EU nationals, who contribute so much, just as UK citizens in other EU countries do.

Neil Gray: My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. I visited one of the largest private sector employers in my constituency on Monday, when I heard about its troubles in accessing labour and the problems that have been exacerbated because of this uncertainty, which has led to many EU nationals who previously worked with it to leave the country.

Stephen Gethins: My hon. Friend makes a good point about his constituency experiences, and it has been interesting to hear those from a number of Members.
I noted that Plaid Cymru Members talked about the decline of UKIP. Scotland was always ahead of the game on UKIP, because it never had any success there—I do not believe it ever saved a deposit in a parliamentary election in Scotland. That is why Scotland voted so overwhelmingly to remain part of the EU; it is about our EU citizenship, but it is about so much more than that. I urge the Government to look at these proposals. Interestingly, Greenland, as a part of a European Union member state, left the EU and the other part of the member state remains. I note that when Greenland left, the withdrawal agreement ensured the rights of EU citizens. EU citizenship is built on these links, and it is crucial not only to our economy but to the future of young people. I urge the Government to reconsider, and I thank Plaid Cymru again for bringing this debate to the House.

Ben Lake: Being a citizen of the EU brings tangible benefits, and I want to return the debate to focusing a little on the impact of European citizenship on UK citizens. It allows people from the UK to move easily to mainland Europe and between European countries, be it for work, study or pleasure. Furthermore, when we are in Europe it enables us to enjoy a range of rights on healthcare, education, work and social security. Young people I meet feel particularly strongly about this issue. Given the insecurity clouding  the horizons of so many across the UK, it is not surprising that the material freedoms afforded by EU citizenship are held to be so important.
I should mention in passing that it is important to remember that EU citizenship has always been additional to UK citizenship. Never have they been mutually exclusive. For many, EU citizenship and the rights that it entails have become synonymous with opportunity, offering them a chance to broaden their horizons. As has been mentioned, there is no legal reason why a limit must be placed on such opportunity—no reason why UK citizens must be stripped of their rights and freedoms.

Michelle Donelan: On the topic of reasons, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the free movement of labour was a key concern of not only those who voted leave but those who voted remain, like me? Does he not believe that, as elected representatives, it is important for us to represent their views?

Ben Lake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although I fear that perhaps she mistakes the point I was making. Perhaps I was not clear enough: I am discussing the rights of UK citizens and their ability to travel to Europe to work and to live. The issue is not freedom of movement; I am talking about a system that people would be able to opt into, but that they could also opt out of.
It is entirely possible to pursue associate EU citizenship for UK citizens, and there are ample precedents from which such a scheme could draw. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) has just mentioned Greenland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) mentioned the experience in Ireland. Perhaps Members would like to look into the interesting situation of the citizens of some of the Crown dependencies in the Channel Islands, where there is a bespoke and unique relationship. I suppose the point I am making is that it is a matter of political will. When it comes to negotiations, there is a way to ensure that benefits are afforded to everybody equally.

Jeremy Lefroy: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case. Currently, young people—indeed, everybody—in the UK can go without a permit to work in 30 other countries: the 27 other EU countries and three of the European economic area countries. After we come out the EU, the number will be zero. A French person of the same age will still be able to go to 29 different countries. What a difference in rights and opportunities that is.

Ben Lake: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes an important point about unnecessarily limiting the horizons of UK citizens. That is the point I am trying to make, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.
As I mentioned, this is perhaps not a legal issue but more a question of political will. The will of the public—in particular, their support for such a measure—is quite clear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon mentioned in his opening remarks, according to research led by the London School of Economics and Opinium in July 2017, of those Britons asked, six out of 10 wanted to keep their EU citizenship after Brexit, and they particularly wanted to keep the rights to live, work, study and travel within the EU. Support for the retention of those rights  is particularly strong among 18 to 24-year-olds, of whom 85% want to retain their EU citizenship in addition to their British citizenship.
In October 2017, a further report was published by the LSE on youth perspectives and priorities for the Brexit negotiations. Focus groups revealed widespread fear and frustration. Prime among young people’s concerns were questions regarding the loss of their EU benefits, including their ability to gain access to educational programmes, opportunities to work and travel in Europe, and rights that they have once they are there.
Ceredigion, the constituency that I have the honour of serving, was one of the handful of Welsh areas that voted to remain. Indeed, prior to the referendum, Ceredigion was widely reported to be one of the most Europhile counties in the whole United Kingdom. To put it bluntly, my constituency did not support leaving the EU and most certainly did not give any Government a mandate to deny its citizens the rights and freedoms that membership of the EU ensures, or, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said, a mandate to limit their horizons and opportunities in comparison with citizens of other European states.
As has been mentioned, the question of the future status of the rights bestowed on UK citizens by EU membership will not disappear; rather, it will grow in both prominence and importance as negotiations progress. A lot has been made of the clarity, or lack thereof, of EU law on the status of the rights of UK citizens after we have left, but I wish to draw attention to international law. European law and its founding treaties may offer a clear interpretation one way, but the reverse is equally clear in international law. If anything, the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties means that it is incumbent on both the UK and the EU to address this matter of future status urgently, for even if article 70(1)(b) of the convention is interpreted in such a way that the withdrawal of a member state from the EU extinguishes the rights of individuals created by the founding treaties, international law would still require that a treaty is agreed on the future status of such rights.
Associate European citizenship is a model that the UK Government could adopt and pursue. As well as affording UK citizens the ability to continue to enjoy the rights and freedoms they currently do, it would safeguard the dormant rights of younger generations, and, perhaps most importantly of all, grant generations yet to be born the same opportunities from which those of us present here today have been able to benefit.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making such a passionate and eloquent case, which I wholeheartedly support. Like him, I represent a constituency—Cardiff South and Penarth—in which people voted to remain. Does he share the real horror that I have of speaking to young people? We are still relatively young ourselves, but we had those opportunities to go abroad. I lived in Denmark and Belgium and enjoyed all my opportunities, but we now have to go around our constituencies and tell young people that they will have fewer opportunities, fewer rights and fewer prospects than we did even just a few years ago.

Ben Lake: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has got to the nub of the issue. By not pursuing this option or  addressing the matter more thoroughly, we are at risk of denying our younger generations the opportunities that we were able to enjoy.

David Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ben Lake: I will give way to the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee.

David Davies: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is he seriously suggesting that the European Union is likely to ban young people from Britain from travelling in other EU countries? If it was trying to do that, would we not be quite right to walk away from an organisation that was willing to contemplate such an outrageous thing?

Ben Lake: I respectfully thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I suggest that what the EU may or may not do is not a matter for this House. I do not think that I have cast any aspersions on what the EU might want to do. What I am saying is that it is in the gift of the Government, and this place, to pursue associate European citizenship to ensure that our young people—in fact not just young people but citizens of the UK old and young—can still enjoy the rights that we currently have.

David Linden: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Does he share my concern that a fourth-year student at Lochend High School in Easterhouse should be able to go on to the Erasmus programme in the next year or two, but because of the vague promises that the Prime Minister has made, that opportunity will not be there? It is therefore the UK Government who are taking such opportunities away from the young people in the east of Glasgow.

Ben Lake: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I agree that the uncertainty is certainly not helpful to anybody. When I speak to a lot of young people, those are precisely the concerns that they raise with me. They do not know what the future holds. At one time, they did know—they were able to plan ahead to do the things that their elder siblings or family members had been able to enjoy. Now they find themselves in the daunting situation of not being able to do so.
My point is that Brexit need not rid UK nationals—young or old—of those rights, and international law is quite clear on that. How UK nationals retain their European citizenship after Brexit is therefore a matter of political will. It is for the Government to propose a model to achieve that, and to negotiate so that it is included in the withdrawal agreement.
Associate citizenship not only presents a possible solution but offers much-needed compromise for an embattled Government and a way to heal the deep divisions that have emerged across the UK. Let me reiterate a point that I made earlier to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan): this will be a model in which someone could opt in or refuse to opt in—the choice will be theirs. It will be a way to heal divisions. The former Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), said that
“if Brexit does not work for young people in our country, in the end it will not be sustainable”.—[Official Report, 17 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 918.]

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd. It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for his introduction to the debate.
I start by stating the obvious. We are not subjects; we are citizens, and as such we are individuals who consent to the rule of Government. The Government rule in accordance with the will of the citizens. We are citizens and we are individuals, and Brexit has consequences for our lives as individuals whether we voted to leave or to remain. I echo exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion said: surely this debate offers an opportunity to heal divisions within our society and to respect both sides of the referendum vote divide, by respecting individuals and permitting them to choose.
As individuals, we stand to lose our heritage as European citizens—a heritage we might not even have been aware was in our possession, a family treasure forgotten at the back of the display cabinet and about to be discarded in the bitter acrimony of divorce. It is to my surprise that it has taken an Opposition day debate initiated by Plaid Cymru to focus in depth on the wide-reaching implication of the loss we face, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank Professor Volker Roeben and my colleague Jill Evans MEP, who have highlighted both the desirability and the legality of our rights as European citizens, and to thank the thousands who have signed Plaid Cymru’s petition in the past two days.
However—this needs to be emphasised, and we need to use the language of Brexit—Brexit must not mean treating individual citizens as vassals, under obligation to our political masters, who might strip us of our citizenship at their whim. It is worth all of us who are speaking in favour of this proposal emphasising that it is clearly permissible in international law. Citizens’ rights are not the Government’s gift to trade, according to the 1969 Vienna convention on treaties. While an EU member state is democratically free to terminate its EU membership, it cannot extinguish the individual status of citizenship, nor its associated rights, without the consent of the individual.
Is there a precedent for this? We have heard a number of precedents already, and I should like to focus on one. We have lived with it for so long that we possibly do not really appreciate or see its value. Following the creation of Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State—now, of course, the Republic of Ireland—politicians debated the implications of how where people lived affected their rights as citizens. Irish citizens who reside in the UK while still remaining Irish citizens enjoy all the benefits of UK citizenship, including the freedom to take up residence and employment in the UK. Irish citizens can play a full part in UK political life, including voting in parliamentary elections and seeking membership of this House. The Republic of Ireland also offers citizenship to all residents of the island of Ireland, and people who are citizens of the UK are entitled to residency in Ireland without any conditions or restrictions. Unlike citizens of other countries, UK citizens are not subject to Ireland’s Aliens Act 1935. That means that a UK citizen does not need a visa or any form of residence permit or employment permit in  Ireland. We are entitled to move to Ireland from any country, and we may move to Ireland to work or to retire.

Joanna Cherry: Is the hon. Lady, like me, visited in her regular constituency surgeries by many people who are currently British citizens who are lucky enough to have an Irish parent and are looking for an MP’s signature on their Irish passport application?

Liz Saville-Roberts: I am grateful for that intervention, and I wonder whether the way this operates in Ireland might be a model for an opt-in pattern for us to think about if we take this issue through to the next stage of making practical considerations.
Unlike other EU citizens, UK citizens may retire to Ireland without having to establish whether we have sufficient resources or are in possession of health insurance. In fact, if we are visiting Ireland we do not even need a European health insurance card to get healthcare services—only a passport or some form of identification to prove UK citizenship.
Interestingly, that did not happen without parliamentary debate and intervention 96 years ago, much of it initiated, interestingly, by the Conservatives and Unionists of that time. I quote from Hansard of 26 June 1922, when Colonel John Gretton—Conservative, Burton—asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
“whether acceptance of the status of a citizen of the Irish Free State, under…Clause 3 of the suggested Constitution for Southern Ireland,”
would deprive
“the person so accepting of his rights as a British subject in Ireland”.
To which Mr Winston Churchill—for it was he—replied:
“The answer is in the negative.”
Mr Gideon Oliphant-Murray, a Unionist MP from Glasgow, pressed the question:
“Is it not a fact that a citizen of a British Dominion is, ipso facto, a British subject?”
To which Mr Churchill replied:
“So will he be in the Irish Free State.”
Mr Oliphant-Murray:
“That is not the case.”
But Mr Churchill was having nothing of it:
“It is the case.”—[Official Report, 26 June 1922; Vol. 155, c. 1663.]
If Winston Churchill felt the need to ensure that individuals should not be stripped of their wished-for citizenship in 1922, surely Conservative Members are honour-bound and loyalty-bound to respect the citizens of 2018 in a similar fashion. All it took was an expression of will on the part of the Conservatives and Unionists of the time and the rights to vote for the Westminster Parliament, as well as the rights of abode and work, were safeguarded. Political will was also brought to bear in relation to Hong Kong, with the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 and the subsequent 1997 Act, which allowed non-Chinese ethnic minorities to acquire full British citizenship.
I raise these as examples of political need but also flexibility, initiative and a respect for the individual caught up in the crossfire of state game-playing. This is a matter of political will, indicative of what the Government respect—the simplistic legal interpretation of Brexit  zealots, which just so happens to bolster an ideological adherence, or the quiet right of citizens to express their will in accordance with international law. I wonder whether the Government took the opportunity to raise this matter with Guy Verhofstadt when he visited yesterday, and who I note also supports our proposal.
This is not an abstract concept or a nicety of legalese. My daughter Lowri has been able to action her right to live and work in France and Spain without constraint, just as I, somewhat longer ago, was able to action my right to study alongside Irish students in Ireland. I speak for many, many of my constituents when I say that we are proud to exercise our rights as citizens of Wales and citizens of Europe. The state may present its citizens with a referendum and then seek to interpret the frankly uninterpretable result, but it may not strip us of our rights. How our laws are made may change, but that does not give this place the legitimacy to interfere with my children’s rights as autonomous individual citizens. What of those young people who were not of an age to vote in 2016? Who are we to say that they may not have the choice that was tacitly agreed in the newly forged relationship with Ireland back in 1922—the choice to opt into a layered citizenship that reflects their individual choice of identity, as Welsh, Scottish, English, and European?
Anyone with a grasp of the history of Wales will know that our country’s very name in English deliberately implies two things: first, that we are different—foreign. But the root of the word was used by the Anglo-Saxons not only to imply foreign, but to imply Roman associations. Wales’s links with Europe are indivisible from the name imposed on us. Not all of us will recall that we were citizens of Rome 1,600 years ago, but many of us would remain European citizens in the 21st century.

Jonathan Edwards: It is a huge pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on his speech, which opened the debate. He set out the case in his usual forensic style, providing great clarity and detail about what is being proposed. I also thoroughly enjoyed the speeches from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who once again proved why he is one of the superstar performers of this Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), who again showed why he is one of the rising stars of Welsh politics, and my parliamentary leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who spoke with her usual great authority, concentrating on the example following the independence of Ireland at the beginning of the last century. She gave us a fantastic history lesson in her contribution.
On the morning after the referendum, on 24 June 2016, I had been given the honour of being the guest speaker at the graduation ceremony of the local further education college in my county, Coleg Sir Gâr. The ceremony was held at the fabulous Ffos Las racecourse in Carwe, in my constituency. Somewhat bleary-eyed and shellshocked after watching the referendum results in the early hours of the morning, I vividly remember standing up at the podium and looking out at the hundreds of young graduates and their families before me. I dropped my speaking notes and went completely off script. Instead  of diving into my speech, to talk about how proud they should be of their achievements and how they should look forward to their future, I apologised to those young people.
My apology was based on being part of the political class that had allowed a set of circumstances that would reduce their life chances and opportunities compared with those that had been available to me and the generations before me—primarily the right to travel, live, work, receive healthcare and reside in any other part of the European Union, among other rights. We have had powerful contributions from several Members, and that is the crux of what we are trying to grapple with today.

Peter Grant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise to his colleagues that I missed the start of the debate. The reason was that, like the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who spoke a few minutes ago, I am a member of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, and some of us had the privilege of meeting a delegation from the Parliament of Slovakia who are in Westminster.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he does not have to give a reason for intervening. Don’t worry about that; we just want to hear your intervention.

Peter Grant: It is highly relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker, because most of the people we met were born in the shadow of the iron curtain. They now have the right to travel all over western Europe and a great deal of central and eastern Europe. Does the hon. Gentleman share my bafflement that while those people are celebrating their fairly recently won right to travel everywhere, we have a Government here that seem determined to take measures that might endanger the right of future generations of UK citizens to travel as freely as our Slovakian friends can travel now?

Jonathan Edwards: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As always, he makes a very valid point. I congratulate him on the excellent work he is doing on the Select Committee. I was privileged to serve on that Committee with him in the last Parliament, and his contributions are always extremely valuable.
Much of the debate following the referendum has surrounded the economic impact of Brexit. There is little doubt in my mind that the best way to protect the Welsh economy is to stay inside the single market and the customs union, and that has been my position from day one. The issue of European Union citizenship rights of UK subjects, however, has not had the level of consideration it deserves.
At this point, I should pay tribute to Jill Evans, the Plaid Cymru MEP representing the whole of Wales who commissioned a report on that issue in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. Her work has gathered considerable support in the European Parliament—including, critically, from Guy Verhofstadt, the lead Brexit negotiator for the European Parliament. Indeed, I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), has had discussions with Mr Verhofstadt on that issue. I would be grateful to learn from the Minister in his response whether that issue was discussed yesterday with Mr Verhofstadt during  his visit to London. The idea has also gained the support of the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs.
I sense, perhaps wrongly, that the British Government have an open mind to what we are proposing today. I am being kind, because it has been a very good-natured debate so far. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in response to the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—who I am delighted to see in his place and thank for his contribution, which hit the nail on the head—said:
“The aim of this exercise is to be good for Europe and good for Britain, which means good for the citizens of Europe and Britain. That is what we intend to do.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 947.]
In her speech last Friday at Mansion House, the Prime Minister failed to provide any great clarity on some of the main issues that have concerned Members in relation to the British Government’s Brexit policy. However, a part of her speech did catch my attention, when she conceded that, despite her hard Brexit policy, she would seek to negotiate UK associate membership status with several EU agencies.

Anna Soubry: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the benefits of our remaining in the single market and the customs union. However, I disagree with him when he says that the Prime Minister’s policy is to have a hard Brexit. If one thing absolutely came out of the Mansion House, it was a firm rejection of a hard Brexit. Does he at least agree with me on that?

Jonathan Edwards: I am always delighted to hear from the right hon. Lady, with whom I work very closely on these matters. However, I fear that the Prime Minister in her speech managed to continue the strategy of trying to placate both sides of the Conservative party. Ultimately, she is going to have to make a call one way or the other. The fact that the right hon. Lady welcomed the speech and the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) welcomed the speech—

David Davies: And me.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman also did so. The fact that they both welcomed the speech leaves me concerned that the Prime Minister is not exactly making a definitive decision on those major issues, on which the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and I actually agree.
As I was saying, the Prime Minister conceded in her speech that she would seek associate membership of several EU agencies. If that is the case, why not apply the same principle to citizenship? Since Plaid Cymru launched our campaign on this issue at the weekend, my Twitter feed has become the location for a lively debate. Indeed, earlier this afternoon I was called a traitor by some people, which indicates the strength of feeling that the debate has generated.

David Davies: I respect the hon. Gentleman, and I totally condemn anyone who has referred to him in that fashion for expressing his views, just as I am sure he would do in relation to those on the other side. We all have a duty here to be courteous in our debate.

Jonathan Edwards: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. This debate is so serious that it needs to be debated in a very reasonable, calm and rational manner, as we have seen in the House today.
Most people have been extremely supportive of what we are suggesting, but others have seen the campaign as a plot to undermine the referendum result, which could not of course be further from the truth. What we are proposing is that, as part of the negotiations, the British Government make the case that those of us who wish to keep our current rights are able to do so, while those who wish to renounce their rights would also be able to do so if they so wished. If the British Government are serious about healing the wounds of the referendum, I argue that they should pursue such an initiative with vigour, because it could unite everybody in every part of the British state.
The key point is that the rights we currently enjoy under the Maastricht treaty do not in any way challenge or undermine our rights as subjects of the British state. This point was made with vigour by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion. They are additional rights, and any action by a Government to take away those rights is an extremely serious matter. It is therefore no wonder that this issue is now before the courts in Europe.
As someone who fundamentally believes in Welsh independence, I recognise that, following the political freedom of my country, there will be a requirement to protect the rights currently enjoyed by the people of our respective countries, as was of course the case following Irish independence. I think that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton)—he is no longer in his place—in his intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon.
In his article in The New European at the weekend, Professor Volker Roeben, who was formerly of the University of Swansea but now works in Dundee in Scotland—I am delighted to see him here—makes the case quite clearly that international and EU law should protect our current EU citizenship from Brexit. I understand that legal opinions differ and I readily admit that I am no legal expert, but he makes a compelling case. I would like to finish my speech by quoting him at some length. He said:
“Of course, a member state is free to terminate its membership for the future, but it cannot extinguish the citizenships that have already been created and the rights that have been exercised—these continue. This status cannot not be taken away neither by the European Union nor by one of its member states.
This is also the impetus of the international law of treaties laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This international law will be binding on the EU, the UK and the remaining member states after Brexit. It governs in considerable detail the consequences that the withdrawal of a state from any treaty, including the Founding Treaties, entail.
One consequence is that the treaty ceases to bind, but the other is that the withdrawal must not have retroactive effect on the rights of individuals already created at the time of withdrawal.”
This results in a challenge to the European Commission and, as I readily admit, to the British Government. My understanding is that the European Parliament is far more understanding of the case than the Commission. If this is the case, then MEPs will have an important role in scrutinising the negotiating tactics of Mr Barnier and his team. At the end of the day, as Professor Roeben states, it is a matter of political will. I hope that,  following this debate, Parliament will support the motion and mandate the British Government to negotiate a protection of the rights we all currently enjoy as European citizens.

Lindsay Hoyle: I now have to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions. In respect of the question relating to Northern Ireland political parties, the Ayes were 308 and the Noes were 261, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the question relating to passport fees, the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 258, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Paul Sweeney: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a correction to the record. This morning, I referred in a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland during Scotland questions to branch closures by RBS last month. Of the 10 branches given a reprieve last month on the basis that they were the last bank in town, two were not in fact the last branches in town. I suggested that the branch in Melrose, which is not the last bank in town, was in the Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituency, which is the constituency of the Secretary of State for Scotland. As a matter of fact, it is in the constituency of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. The other branch that is not the last branch in town is located in Kyle, which is in the Ross, Skye and Lochaber constituency, which is the constituency of the leader of the Scottish National party in Westminster. I would like to correct the record to that effect.

Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman has made that correction.

Drew Hendry: May I, too, warmly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and Plaid Cymru for bringing forward this timely and important debate?
Before I begin my remarks, I would like to declare a non-financial interest. For many years, I have been an honorary consul to Romania for the highlands and islands. I will come back to that later. It seems to me, as we are discussing the rights of European citizenship, that we should all declare our financial interests, as well as many more interests.
The concept of European citizenship was introduced in the 1992 Maastricht treaty, affording rights, freedoms and legal protections to all citizens, as well as giving a legal basis to European identity. Many of those rights are tied up with the four freedoms of the single market, as we heard earlier. European citizens have the right to live, work and study across the EU and associated countries. European citizens are free to trade and transport goods, services and capital through EU borders as in national markets, with no restrictions on capital movements or duty fees. Citizens have the right to vote and run as a candidate in local elections in the country where they live and in European elections, and to participate in the European citizens’ initiative. Citizenship of the EU confers the right of consular protection by embassies of other EU member states when a person’s country of membership is not represented by an embassy or consulate  in the country in which they require protection. EU citizens have the right to vote for and petition the European Parliament, and the right to address themselves to the European ombudsman and EU agencies directly in their own language if the issues raised are within their competence. Finally, EU citizens enjoy legal protections under EU law, specifically through the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and through Acts and directives regarding the protection of personal data, the rights of victims of crime, the prevention and combating of trafficking in human beings, equal pay and protection from employment discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation, age and other characteristics. Those are substantial rights for European citizens.
I was privileged to serve as the vice-president of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, a fantastic organisation that brings together local authority areas from across Europe as far apart as Finland and the Azores. We discussed common issues across the European Union in order to get our points made as citizens of the EU about policy. It was a great privilege to do that. I travelled to that group as a European citizen with the rights I have outlined. I was never treated as an outsider or a foreigner, and none of the people I met during that time were ever foreign to me.
As an honorary consul, I have helped Romanian citizens in the highlands and islands, directing them to the support and services they might need. It has never involved my doing anything other than my job of helping people as an MP. It would be the same, and it is the same, for constituents who are Polish, French or German. I am sure we would all do the same. That point of contact has allowed me to build social and economic ties with our Romanian neighbours.

Patrick Grady: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work to support Romanians and other European citizens in my hometown of Inverness. I welcome the fact that Plaid have brought this debate today, especially as I am a member of Plaid Cymru, as well as a member of the Scottish National party.

Jim Shannon: Dual citizenship!

Patrick Grady: Exactly! In that sense, I am a dual citizen as well. It just shows that we can all get along and perhaps these principles should be extended to everybody.

Drew Hendry: Absolutely. On the principle of extending European citizenship, this is deeper than just a set of rights. This is an historic tie, which we should cherish. That identity is very important to Scotland. We have always been a European nation and we continue to be a European nation.

Alison Thewliss: My hon. Friend is laying out the connections and ties we have been lucky enough to make across Europe. In 2005, I did an internship at the Committee of the Regions not long after the new accession states joined the EU. It was with great joy that I made new friends from Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and all the other new countries coming into the EU, who valued that citizenship and the links and ties they could make. Does he share my deep regret that we are no longer going to be a part of that shared project?

Drew Hendry: Absolutely, although I would say that the UK Government have it within their gift to ensure, certainly on the issue of European citizenship, that we remain a part of that project.
It is very important to understand the feeling in Scotland, which I know is shared by many people in Wales. I would like to quote from a leader in the Sunday Herald, which I think is particularly poignant:
“Scotland has been an outward looking European nation since the late middle ages. From the 16th century, Scots merchants, academics and soldiers spread far and wide in the continent establishing communities in countries like Poland, Sweden and the Low Countries. As a poor nation on Europe’s periphery it was Scotland’s lot to export its people, and the flow continued apace during the British Empire. But intellectual and commercial trade was very much two way. It is no accident that so many European words have entered the Scottish language, such as the Swedish ‘braw’, Dutch ‘kirk’, German ‘ken’, French ‘dour’. Our very language testifies to Scotland’s European connections.”

Jamie Stone: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would care to add to his list: soiree, meaning an evening out; gigot, meaning a leg of lamb; and ashet, on which we cut our lamb on and which comes from assiette in French?

Drew Hendry: Yes, I would indeed. It is a list to which I could, if I had the time and perhaps the patience of Mr Deputy Speaker, add many more words that highlight that connection. [Interruption.] I am being encouraged to go for it, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will move on.
That is the kind of place Scotland is and the kind of Scotland we want to live in. Our European identity and our shared values with the EU are very much at the heart of that. It is important to reflect that, during the referendum on the EU, 62% voted to remain in the EU and there was a majority to remain in all Scottish local authority areas, yet European Scots face not only the economic and social impacts of Brexit, but losing their European identity. A colleague of mine in the European Parliament, Alyn Smith, said:
“So what does Scotland have right now? Scotland has been an integral part of the EU for almost 50 years, a status that we now face losing. We are represented at every stage of the EU’s activities. The recreation, in 1999, of the Scottish Parliament and the formation of a Scottish Government gave Scotland a far stronger voice within the EU, and has allowed the people of Scotland to find Scottish solutions for Scottish problems and design a society that reflects our needs. This has led to Scotland showing how very European it really is. We stand alongside the rest of Northern Europe by not privatising healthcare, encouraging the development of renewable energy and not charging our citizens for higher education.”

Jeremy Lefroy: These rights are held dear not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK. Clause 41 of Magna Carta states:
“All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs.”
For trade, this goes back not just to the Bill of Rights, but to Magna Carta.

Drew Hendry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for pointing out that the situation looks as though it would have been easier in the time of Magna Carta than it will be if we lose our European citizenship. However, I want to reflect on the highlands and our relationship with European citizenship.

Anna Soubry: I suggest that one reason there was such a strong remain vote in Scotland was not just that, as the hon. Gentleman said, people think themselves more European than perhaps British—I do not agree with him about that—but that, as I think we can agree, there is a real understanding of the positive benefits of immigration. When I served on the Scottish Affairs Committee, it was striking that Scotland was crying out for more people to come in and work there. Does he think that the fact that the Scottish people have not been afraid to talk about the positive benefits of immigration may be a large part of the result north of the border?

Drew Hendry: The right hon. Lady has stolen my thunder slightly, because the fact that we have received many benefits was exactly where I was going to go next. The very next line of my speech—I am very grateful that she brought this up—is that the long-term issues in the highlands have not been about immigration, but about emigration. That has been a historical problem. Depopulation has been a critical issue in the highlands. Our deepened relationships with the EU have presented an opportunity to welcome EU Scots to our region, a great many of whom have settled in the area.

Angus MacNeil: The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) highlighted the different attitude to migration, and that really needs to be underpinned by different migration policies and by Scotland being able to decide, as is the case in other countries such as Switzerland, where the 26 cantons can control half the visas. This issue does not have to be centrally controlled in London. In my constituency, I need fishermen to come from Ghana and the Philippines to fish. I cannot get them in, because a person in London often says no. We need a migration Minister with the courage to change that, and I hope we have this time.

Drew Hendry: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I know that he shares my concerns about the unrealistic, counter-productive, one-size-fits-all net migration target that overlooks the incredible value of migrant people to our isles and the different economic needs of the highlands and islands, and of Scotland as a whole.
Over the next 10 years, 90% of Scotland’s population growth is projected to come from migration. This is especially vital for the highlands. Migration has created cultural and diverse communities that have tied us together, populated by many European Scots, solidifying our European identity. Twenty-one languages are spoken by pupils, for example, at Central Primary School in Inverness, such is the diversity of families settling in the highlands. European citizenship, whether it is our own or that of European citizens who are here, is very important for the economy—tourism accounts for 20% of the economy—as well as many other sectors. I could mention food processing, renewables, life sciences and so on, but I will not pause on those.

Jamie Stone: In addition to what the hon. Gentleman says about migration to our country, Scotland, the historical emigration of Scots was a curse on the highlands for many years, but European investment in infrastructure, via schemes such as objective 1, helped halt—and indeed reverse—that, meaning that classmates of mine and  younger generations stayed in the highlands, rather than seeking their fortunes outwith the beloved land they came from.

Hear, hear!

Drew Hendry: Absolutely—hear, hear! The point about young people staying in the highlands is critical, but, conversely, their ability to move freely throughout Europe, gain skills and come back is also very important. I have personal experience of this. My two boys went off to work in Europe, gain skills and broaden their horizons. One has already come back to Scotland to add to our economy the skills he gained in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) mentioned, the ability of young people to travel through and study and work in Europe and to live as European citizens has been transformational, not just for them but for our economy—locally, in the highlands, across Scotland and, I contend, across the whole of the UK. We should cherish that. It should not be under threat.

Peter Grant: As a student, I not only benefitted from the ability to travel in France and elsewhere but spent a month just outside my hon. Friend’s constituency working on a fruit farm in Beauly—which, of course, is French for “beautiful place”. Does he agree that, as well as people from the UK losing out if they cannot travel freely across Europe, if European citizens are restricted in their ability to come here, young people here will lose out on the benefits of mixing with people from a wide range of backgrounds, and as well as the free movement of people, the free movement of ideas and beliefs is vital and should be retained?

Drew Hendry: My hon. Friend makes a terrific point that we should pause to reflect on during this discussion, and it is not just about the ability of young people to interact in that way. I have often said that I aspire to be an older person and that I am making good progress—I have used that line before and will do so again. It is not just about young people; European citizenship is key to everyone’s ability to broaden their horizons.
Just today—ironically—there was an announcement about the introduction of free inter-rail travel across Europe. Young people face losing out on that; they face losing out on the end to roaming charges and consequently a loss of connectivity; and, as mentioned earlier, they face losing the European health protection that has enabled them to reduce the cost of living and studying.

Wera Hobhouse: The hon. Gentleman is describing very eloquently the opportunities that his sons have had travelling through the EU. Is this not precisely a question of education and the opportunities our young people have to travel, and was not the Brexit vote particularly strong where educational opportunities were not very high? Rather than leaving the EU and restricting young people’s ability to go to the EU, is it not important that we extend educational opportunities to all young people in this country?

Drew Hendry: On the life chances that young people will have as they grow into adults and move through their careers, it is critical that every opportunity they get to broaden their horizons be embraced, and we should do everything possible to avoid anything that removes their ability to broaden their horizons, such as losing their EU citizenship.
I want to quote a couple of paragraphs from Jolyon Maugham QC:
“The idea of European citizenship has its roots in the aftermath of the second world war, when Winston Churchill”—
my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) quoted him earlier—
“spoke of a ‘common citizenship’ that would unite Europe together ‘in the sharing of its common inheritance’”.
He went on to say:
“European citizenship confers a number of privileges: the right to live in and move freely between member states”,
and all the other things that I mentioned earlier.
“The shared assumption of the European Union and the UK government is that Brexit will mean British citizens will automatically forfeit these rights. But this is being tested in a case brought by a group of UK nationals living in Amsterdam, which I funded with the help of Dutch law firm Bureau Brandeis, which agreed to act for a modest fee.”
He ended by saying, as one who was born in London,
“I am a Londoner, I am British, and I am European. They’re not mutually exclusive”.
The same applies to Scotland. Citizenship of Europe is very important to us. Scotland is not foreign to Europe, and Europe is not foreign to Scotland. We are Europeans.
I am grateful to the Merriam-Webster thesaurus for its definition of “foreigner” as
“a person who is not native to or known to a community.”
EU citizenship has made that an antonym. Those people are our buddies, our chums, our comrades, our confidants, our cronies, our friends, our pals, our mates, our partners and our peers. We are European. We should retain the rights and benefits of European citizenship, and I hope that the Government will ensure that that happens.

Anna McMorrin: I thank my colleagues in Plaid Cymru for initiating this welcome debate.
European citizenship confers numerous privileges: the right to live in and move freely between member states, the right to diplomatic and consular assistance from other member states, and the right to participate in elections to the European Parliament. It is a principle of UK citizenship law that individuals cannot be stripped of their citizenship because of territorial changes. The UK Government must clarify whether that principle should apply to the protection of European citizenship.
It is shameful that, although the Tory manifesto on which the previous UK Government were elected promised to—at last—allow British citizens who had lived abroad for more than 15 years to vote, those people were then denied a chance to vote in the referendum. The voices of about 1 million people went unheard. It is also shameful that the UK Government have not yet delivered on the promise that the EU’s freedom of movement rights will be honoured for all citizens who reside in other nations in the European economic area. For many UK citizens who did not have the chance to vote in the referendum, and for many who voted to remain because they did not wish their European citizenship rights to be taken away from them, this Brexit—whatever it is—is nothing like the epitome of democracy that some hard Tory Brexiteers would have us think.

Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Is this not the greatest tragedy of the way in which the Brexit negotiations are unfolding? The people who voted leave were not being given the Brexit for which they voted on the timescale for which they voted, but the biggest losers will be the people throughout the country—especially the young—whose opportunities will become far more limited because of the type of Brexit that is being pursued. Furthermore, every parent and grandparent in the country should reflect on the damage that is being done to the prospects of their children and grandchildren.

Anna McMorrin: That is an excellent point with which I completely agree. Indeed, I am about to speak about just that issue.
Brexit is an injustice that will take away rights without giving people the option to secure those rights in the long term for themselves and their children. The idea of European citizenship is cherished by those who are old enough to remember a time when Europe was going through a healing process. We seem to have forgotten that it was not always the peaceful, prosperous place that it is today: a union of people, not merely nations. It is a pity that there are elected politicians in this House who are unwilling to understand the strong feelings of many British people about their European identity.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a strong speech. Does she agree that many people, particularly in places like Cardiff where we have a strong and thriving university sector, see themselves much more as part of pan-European collaboration in science and driving forward progress in discovery, and key to that is their European Union citizenship? By taking that away we potentially do great damage to those relationships on a European level that are taking forward all sorts of exciting scientific discoveries.

Anna McMorrin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am proud to represent Cardiff North, and the whole of Cardiff is a diverse community. We have plenty of students from across the European nations, and we want to retain that feeling of European identity and citizenship.

Chris Leslie: My hon. Friend is making very important points. She mentioned the politics of this, and it used to be the case that the Conservatives supported the single market and these issues. I feel very strongly that Labour should fly the flag for citizens’ rights within the context of the single market. That is an incredibly important thing, and I hope that eventually my Front-Bench team will also recognise that the single market is the best way to offer these protections.

Anna McMorrin: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He knows my personal feeling, representing Cardiff North, which is a strong remain constituency: most of my constituents would love us to remain in the single market.

Emma Little Pengelly: I too represent a university constituency, and I recognise the concerns raised by our young people who want to access the opportunities the EU gives them. We need to  fight to ensure that opportunities continue after Brexit, but does the hon. Lady also recognise that this is very much a game of two halves: although many young people, particularly university students, could take up those opportunities, which are very welcome, many other young people from disadvantaged backgrounds would never have the money to be able to travel to Europe and could never take up those options, and their employment prospects were deeply damaged by their being undercut by the free movement of people across the EU?

Anna McMorrin: I beg to disagree with the hon. Lady. The best way to retain those opportunities for young people from all types of background—disadvantaged and not—is to keep those opportunities open and to work to be a citizen of the EU, and for the UK Government not to take us on the damaging Brexit course they are currently taking us on.

Stephen Gethins: I thank the hon. Lady for making a very important point. Does she agree that tens of thousands of young people from all parts of the UK and from all backgrounds have benefited, because the EU has allowed those from more disadvantaged backgrounds to get educational opportunities they would never otherwise have had?

Anna McMorrin: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I worked in Brussels for a time, as well as in other EU countries, and I can see the benefits for young people from all backgrounds.
This is about identity. It is about what we call ourselves in terms of our identity and citizenship. I call myself Welsh and European, and I will continue to do so in equal measure even after Brexit.
I urge the Government to look at the practical benefits of European citizenship, and to support demands to allow British people to continue to benefit from it. As I said, I lived, studied and worked in France, Spain and Belgium when I was younger. It is a shame to think that my two daughters will not be able to have those same experiences and opportunities because the UK Government did not think EU citizenship was worth fighting for. Brexit will do nothing more than isolate us as a nation and cut off those benefits and opportunities for our younger people.
To be Welsh and European is to be open and inclusive. The Welsh writer Gwyn Thomas expressed that beautifully when he said that south Wales society is
“the most marvellously interpenetrating thing”
where
“everyone was sensitive and thin skinned to the problems of others”.
He described it as a
“warm soup of comradeship, love, singing, understanding”.
That is how we should consider citizenship of the whole European Union, and I urge this Government to have the courage to safeguard our citizenship as we exit the EU.

David Linden: What a pleasure it is to follow such a fantastic speech from the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin). I begin by commending and thanking our colleagues in Plaid Cymru for securing this debate. I believe that this is the  first time in history that Plaid Cymru has had its own Opposition day debate, and I hope that we will have more of them.
Most people who have taken part in this debate have declared an interest. I look up at the annunciator and see my German surname, and I am incredibly proud to be someone of German descent in this House. I am also incredibly proud to represent Scotland, where 62% of the population voted to remain in the European Union. All 32 local authority areas voted to remain, and my constituency voted remain. However, we see ourselves looking over the cliff-edge of a hard Brexit to which we have been driven by the Back Benchers of the Conservative party, and it is something that Scotland did not vote for.
The points made during the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), about the impact on young people really amplify the disaster that Brexit will be. I have questioned the Prime Minister about the Erasmus scheme, and she can give us certain guarantees about the next year or two. However, the reality is that a young person studying at Lochend Community High School in Easterhouse, a deprived area in my constituency, currently has the opportunity to travel and see other parts of Europe through Erasmus. That directly answers the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) about young people from deprived backgrounds.

Emma Little Pengelly: Just to build on that, my point was that, yes, it is fantastic that young people have such opportunities, and we have tried to encourage take-up in Northern Ireland, but I speak to many young people from deprived communities who have said, “We apply for job after job across the European Union.” There are record levels of NEETs—young people not in employment, education or training—and to understand what motivates people we must understand that those opportunities do not apply to everybody. We need to recognise that that was part of the challenges of the single market and free movement of people and part of why people were opposed to it.

David Linden: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I have been campaigning on apprenticeships during my time in the House, and, as a former modern apprentice, I am glad that we are taking part in National Apprenticeship Week. However, the reality is that this Government have a poor record when it comes to paying young people. Young people are not included in the national living wage, and an apprentice can still, under the law, be paid as little as £3.50 an hour. I am absolutely in favour of ensuring that young people are paid appropriately, but that is not necessarily something for the European Union. I think responsibility for that lies at the door of the UK Government, who have a pretty woeful record on employment rights and pay for young people.
The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) talked about the importance of staying in the single market and the customs unions—I stress that I mean “the” customs union. I hope that his particular wing of the Labour party grows stronger and can convince his Front-Bench team of the importance of remaining in the single market and the customs union, because failure to do so will result in the sacrifice of 80,000 jobs in Scotland. I represent a constituency with fragile employment  prospects. Unemployment in my constituency is double the UK average, which is one reason I am particularly furious that UK Government have just closed two of the three jobcentres in my constituency. Only last week, I was dealing with two companies that have announced the closure of stores in my constituency because they are going into administration. One reason for that were the fluctuations in the pound due to the uncertainty caused by Brexit. We need to be absolutely clear about the need to protect jobs. I agree with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about the importance of a jobs-first Brexit, but the only way to achieve that is by ensuring that we stay in the single market and the customs union, so I very much hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham East manages to convince his Front-Bench colleagues.

Chris Leslie: That is good timing by the hon. Gentleman, because this afternoon the European Commission published its draft negotiation for the future relationship. One of the final paragraphs states that the European Union will be prepared to reconsider the idea of an FTA settlement if circumstances change and the situation evolves. The EU is saying that if the Government drop their ridiculous, self-imposed red lines on the customs union and the single market, it will allow us to have those benefits. I think that is the route we need to pursue.

David Linden: Absolutely. Unsurprisingly, I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister conceded yesterday that roaming charges will come back. The Government are spending all this time talking about taking back control, but they will not be taking back control of my phone bill the next time I go to Europe, because it is going to go through the roof.
These things were all put on the side of a bus, which brings me to my next point. When I went with my wife and son to the polling station to vote in the EU referendum, there was nothing on my ballot paper about leaving the single market and the customs union. Conservative Members spend a huge amount of time telling us that people knew what they were voting for. If that is the case, people thought they were voting for £350 million extra a week for the national health service, and we do not see much evidence of that happening.
My final point—I say this as someone who respects the will of Parliament—relates to the absence of certain Members who spend a huge amount of time talking about parliamentary sovereignty. I suspect that, once again, an Opposition day motion will pass. There is much in this motion that is absolutely commendable and I would be more than happy to support it in a Division. My challenge to hon. Members, particularly those with a Brexit background who claim that we are taking back control and empowering this place, and who say, “We must respect what the House of Commons says,” is to acknowledge that, when this motion passes, it is incumbent on the Government to support it and implement it. I very much hope that the Government will adhere to it and that they will not ignore Parliament. If they are serious about taking back control, that starts with listening to this House of Commons.

Hywel Williams: Right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if my comments are fairly brief, given my current condition. I am pleased to say that this has been  a high-quality debate, in contrast to the debate out in the country. We have heard positive contributions from about a dozen hon. Members. Perhaps that has something to do with the absence of the usual suspects, particularly on the Conservative Benches, who continually repeat the same tired arguments, to very little positive effect. I am gratified by the emphasis that so many hon. Members have put on the rights of young people, thus looking to the future, not to the past.
It is a somewhat novel idea for this place to talk about the continuation of European Union citizenship after we leave. It is not surprising, therefore, that Members have been tempted to wander away to questions about the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and to the Brexit question in general. I do not think that that has impeded or hampered the debate; it has been a suitable counterpoint.
In her initial response, the Minister for Immigration made her central point that when we leave the European Union, EU citizenship will lapse, but Opposition Members have clearly made the counter-argument that international law suggests the very opposite. I will take the opportunity yet again to draw attention to the report “The Feasibility of Associate EU Citizenship for UK Citizens Post-Brexit”, which argues the case clearly, based on the Vienna convention, specifically article 71(b).
I am glad that this has turned out to be a positive if shortish debate, and I look forward to hearing a positive response from the Government.

Robin Walker: I congratulate Plaid Cymru on its first Opposition day debate, the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on tabling the motion and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on opening the debate with his usual eloquence, passion and power. I congratulate everyone who has contributed to a genuinely considered discussion on maintaining European Union citizenship for British nationals.
It is entirely proper that we debate issues relating to the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, and the rights that we hold today as European citizens are an important aspect of that. I have heard many arguments from across the Chamber today as to why we should seek to secure some form of continuation of EU citizenship for British nationals after we withdraw from the European Union. I welcome the varied contributions made to this important debate, including the report by Jill Evans MEP and Swansea University, to which several colleagues referred.
I have listened closely to the arguments that the rights and protections held by individuals with EU citizenship are, in some cases, integral to their identity. We had a fascinating discussion about identity, and my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) spoke well about some of the complexities of that and how his constituency has been shaped by Europe in a different way from some others. I should say that the Prime Minister has made it clear, and I reiterate, that we are leaving the European Union; we are not leaving Europe. On this question of identity, at the end of this process we will still all be citizens of a European state.

Stephen Gethins: The motion says:
“That this House supports the maintenance of European Union citizenship rights”.
Will the Minister confirm that if the motion is approved by the House, that will be part of his negotiating strategy?

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion. I said that we listened carefully to the debate, and of course we always listen carefully to decisions of this House. In response to the calls from my colleagues in this House and the other place, and from Members of the European Parliament, to argue for the continuation of EU citizenship for UK nationals, let me say that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration confirmed earlier, we will always be very happy to listen to any proposals on our exit from the European Union. However, as EU treaty provisions state that only citizens of EU member states are able to hold EU citizenship, when the UK ceases to be a member of the European Union, UK nationals will no longer hold EU citizenship, unless of course they hold dual nationality from another EU member state. It is important that we respect the EU’s legal order, and of course our own, when EU treaties and EU law no longer apply to the UK.
I wish to take this opportunity to respond on the doctrine of acquired rights, which I know the House of Lords EU Committee looked into, expressing some concern about the validity of acquired rights in this context. Article 70 of the Vienna convention was mentioned by a number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake). To be clear, article 70 is a “default” rule, which does not apply where the parties to a treaty agree arrangements relating to a particular party’s withdrawal. The UK and the EU will agree these arrangements under the article 50 process, to be defined in the withdrawal agreement. The argument on acquired rights under article 70 does not, therefore, apply in the context of these negotiations.

Hywel Williams: Can the Minister confirm that it is a matter of political will whether we retain those citizens’ rights?

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Of course it is a question of political decisions on both sides and respect for one another’s legal orders. The prospect of maintaining EU citizenship for UK nationals is not something that has been suggested to us to date in the negotiations, either by the European Commission or by any individual member state. Throughout the negotiations we have, however, put citizens at the heart of our approach.

Wera Hobhouse: Does the Minister not agree that the Prime Minister is proposing, in many ways, that we are going to see very new shores—for example, with the border without a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? If we are really looking for new opportunities, this would be exactly such an opportunity, where we are doing something that has not been done before.

Robin Walker: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. Of course, in our joint report we made specific commitments on the Irish border that we absolutely stand by.
It has been the Government’s policy from the very beginning to provide certainty and stability for UK citizens who have made their lives in the EU and for EU citizens here in the UK. As the Prime Minister set out at Mansion House last week, EU citizens are an integral part of the economic, cultural and social fabric of our county, which is why we made it a priority to secure in the first phase of the negotiations a fair deal on citizens’ rights that will allow for UK and EU citizens to continue their lives broadly as they do now.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration detailed earlier in the debate—

Liz Saville-Roberts: rose—

Robin Walker: I will give way to the hon. Lady after I have made this point, if I may.
The comprehensive agreement that we secured in December grants citizens certainty about a wide range of rights, including residents’ healthcare, which was highlighted by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), as well as pensions and other benefits. That means that UK nationals who are living in the EU at the point of exit will continue to benefit from rights that stem from their EU citizenship today. After our exit, those rights will be provided for by the withdrawal agreement, which will enshrine them and take the status of international law, having direct effect in EU member states. They will also be written into UK law by Parliament, through the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I hope the Minister will forgive me for taking him back to a point he made earlier, but if the proposal for the citizens of Northern Ireland is suitable for them, why is it not suitable for the citizens of Wales, Scotland and England?

Robin Walker: The hon. Lady raises a good point. She touched on some of the history in her speech and I was very interested in her historical references. There are long-standing commitments that the UK has made to the citizens of all of Ireland, and we built on those in the Belfast Good Friday agreement. I shall return to them towards the end of my speech. We have to recognise that those provisions were brought about by unique circumstances that date back long before our membership of the EU.
The Government have shown that we have listened to calls to provide certainty to EU citizens in the UK, by ensuring that citizens will be able to rely directly on the rights enshrined in the withdrawal agreement through the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will be introduced to Parliament after the withdrawal agreement has been finalised. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration mentioned, we have listened to feedback from communities throughout the UK on the process of acquiring settled status. We have been clear that the new application scheme will be digital, streamlined and user-friendly. We are consulting regularly with EU citizens’ user groups and employers as we design the system.
On the point made by the hon. Member for North East Fife, we will make sure that those who undertake overseas postings, including military service in our armed forces, will not be disadvantaged.

Stephen Doughty: I hope I can tempt the Minister back to the rights that UK citizens currently have as EU citizens. He said a few moments ago that it had not been suggested in the negotiations, but Guy Verhofstadt has been clear that he believes that UK citizens would be able to retain their EU citizenship rights on an individual basis. What does the Minister have to say about that clear proposal?

Robin Walker: As the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) mentioned earlier, I have personally discussed this issue with Guy Verhofstadt. I put it to him that we are negotiating with the Commission, so he needs to make that point to the Commission. If he wishes that to be part of the negotiations, it needs to be discussed in that context. After his meeting in Downing Street this week, Guy Verhofstadt said:
“I think it is possible in the coming days and coming weeks we make progress on this”
issue for citizens
“and we can conclude on this…It should be fine that the citizens rights’ chapter is done, it is finished, it is concluded and everybody knows UK nationals and EU citizens know what their status is in the future.”
I welcome that statement.
Some colleagues have referred to rights that are not covered by the agreement we have reached so far—for example, the right of onward movement for UK nationals. The EU’s approach so far has been to say that it is not an issue that can be resolved in this phase of the negotiations, but we have had meetings on the topic with Members of the European Parliament, and I know that they are as keen as we are to secure that right. It is not something on which we have in any way given up.
Other colleagues, including the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), referred to the right to stand and vote in local and national elections. I stress that we wanted that right to continue—we would have liked it to be part of the citizens’ rights agreement—but the European Commission again ruled that it was outside the scope of the first stage of the negotiations. We have made a commitment to protect that right for EU citizens currently in the UK, and we want to that to be reciprocated. A number of member states already have provisions allowing nationals of a third country to vote in local elections, and we will continue to explore that with other member states bilaterally.
The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) mentioned plans to legislate to enable UK citizens living overseas for more than 15 years to retain their right to vote. I am sure that, like me, she welcomed the Government’s support for legislation of this nature just the Friday before last.
As the House will be aware, we are seeking to agree an implementation period of about two years beyond the date of our exit. The purpose of such a period is to give people, businesses and public services in the UK and across the EU the time they need to put in place new arrangements that will be required to adjust to our future partnership. I want to be clear that, during this implementation period, we intend that people will be able to come to the UK to live, study and work, as they do now. We are discussing the precise terms of the implementation period with the EU and we aim to reach agreement by the March European Council.

Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend is clearly articulating what the aims and the goals of the Government are. A minute ago, he mentioned reciprocation. Is it not the case that that is at the core of all this? We are asking not for special rights for EU citizens, or indeed for UK citizens, but for a fair and reasonable exit process from the EU that retains reciprocal rights.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. We want reciprocal rights and reciprocal respect for one another’s political and legal systems.
We recognise that, in the future, as the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) noted, UK citizens will still want to work and study in EU countries, just as EU citizens will want to do here, helping to shape and drive growth, innovation and enterprise. None the less, the people of the United Kingdom did choose to leave the EU, and, as he pointed out, Wales voted by a majority to leave. As a result of that decision, the EU treaties will no longer apply to the United Kingdom and the Government have been clear that freedom of movement will come to an end.
I listened with interest to the part of today’s debate that dealt with suggestions for our continued membership of the single market. We accept that there is a balance of rights and responsibilities in the treaties and that, in choosing to leave the EU, we will put those rights in a new and different balance. We understand and respect the indivisible nature of the four freedoms, which is why leaving the EU and ending free movement and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice does mean leaving the single market.
The Government propose a unique and ambitious partnership, which will be based on our rules and regulations being the same from the start and on maintaining our commitment to free trade and high standards, while allowing us to both make changes when we want to in a stable and orderly way, as my hon. Friend just said, with respect for one another’s systems. The exact shape of this future relationship has yet to be negotiated, but as the Prime Minister noted last week, we recognise the need to maintain the social, economic and cultural links between our people and ensure that businesses can attract and employ the people they need. That is why we are taking an evidence-based approach to our future immigration policy—something that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) managed to both call for and rail against at the same time. We commissioned an independent advisory body, the MAC, to gather evidence on patterns of EU migration and its role in the wider economy. That will include consideration of the impacts on the different parts of the UK, within the context of designing a UK-wide immigration system.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Just to clarify, my point was about the Government’s inaction on bringing forward legislation.

Robin Walker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to take an evidence-based approach, he has to make sure that his legislation is based on that evidence and the studies that are being conducted. He also suggested that the CBI had been critical of the Government. In fact, the CBI  welcomed our recent announcement on citizens’ rights during the implementation period. Its director general said that this is
“a big step in the right direction”,
and that:
“This announcement will remove significant short-term uncertainty for family, businesses and wider communities.”
We have also listened carefully to the evidence.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: rose—

Robin Walker: I do want to move on, because I realise that I am taking a bit of time, but I will give way one last time to the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way once again, but the quote from the CBI was about the inaction on the Immigration Bill, when the CBI declared itself to be hugely frustrated.

Robin Walker: The CBI is a key consultee of the MAC process; I am sure that it wants to play a full part in the process and to make sure that the legislation, when it comes forward, is based on the evidence.
Talking of listening to the evidence, I listened carefully to hon. Members in this debate when they talked about young people’s opportunities to study and to travel, and about the benefits of working together on issues such as science and research. We set out in our “Collaboration on science and innovation: a future partnership paper” a strong ambition to continue to co-operate and collaborate with EU member states, and indeed the many third-country members of its framework programmes, in that area. The Prime Minister spoke in Florence about maintaining the educational, cultural and scientific links between us and fellow members.

David Linden: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. May I press him on the point that I raised with the Prime Minister? At the time that a second-year student now at Lochend Community High School in my constituency leaves school and goes to university, will they still be able to take part in Erasmus?

Charles Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the current Erasmus programme is covered by the current multi-annual financial framework of the European Union, which ends in 2020. We need to look at what future frameworks would look like and how negotiations would approach the issue in future, but we have already set out a very positive UK position. We look forward to engaging with the EU on many issues, as part of the discussions of our future partnership.
In the debate, there was some discussion of the powers of devolved Administrations to act on citizens’ rights. I should make it clear that we are committed to securing a deal that works for the entire United Kingdom—for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all parts of England. We expect the outcome of leaving the European Union to be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved Administration. I look forward to discussing that further when I attend the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) tomorrow. The deal secured in December is, of course, without prejudice to the common travel area between the UK and Ireland and  the rights of British and Irish citizens in each other’s countries. We stand by our commitments in the Belfast agreement, one of which is that the people of Northern Ireland have the right to choose to be British, Irish or both. Maintaining those rights means that the people of Northern Ireland will not be required to assert and choose a specific identity in order to access public services and other entitlements. Their rights to work, study and access social security and public services will be preserved on a reciprocal basis.
I am grateful for the time and contribution of all Members to this important debate. I have listened carefully to the points that have been raised across the House. Whilst associate citizenship is not within the current scope of negotiations, I reiterate that I will always be happy to listen to proposals from colleagues or our European counterparts on how we can best safeguard the rights of UK nationals.
I want to be clear that at every step of these negotiations, we will work to secure the best possible deal for all UK nationals, including those currently living in the EU and those who wish to travel to the EU in future. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear, although we are leaving the European Union, we are not leaving Europe. I remind colleagues that the concept of EU citizenship only appeared in the Maastricht treaty of 1993. We were citizens of Europe long before Maastricht, and while we may now be leaving the political structures of the European Union and its treaties, we will not be any less European as a result.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House supports the maintenance of European Union citizenship rights for Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish and English citizens, notes that the range of rights and protections afforded to individuals as European Union citizens are integral to a person’s European identity; further notes that many of those rights are closely linked to the UK’s membership of the Single Market; and calls on the UK Government to ensure that the UK’s  membership of the Single Market and UK citizens’ right to European Union citizenship are retained in the event that the UK leaves the EU.

David Davies: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions today, the Leader of the Opposition stated that British armed forces were directing the attacks in Yemen. I checked with No. 10 Downing Street and that is completely incorrect. British armed forces personnel are not involved in any way at all with what is going on in Yemen or Saudi Arabia. We are about to discuss our armed forces, and I feel that comments like that could actually be putting our armed forces at risk. I wondered whether you had had any indication that the Leader of the Opposition is going to come to the House to apologise and put the record straight.

Lindsay Hoyle: First of all, it is not a matter for the Chair, as you well know. You have put it on the record, but it is certainly not for the Chair to intervene, either on behalf of the Opposition or the Prime Minister.

Hywel Williams: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will be very glad to be able to tell our European friends that this House now supports the idea of maintaining European Union citizenship rights. This follows the motion passed by the Brussels Parliament in March 2017, which also supported the idea of continuing associate EU citizenship for British nationals post Brexit. I seek your confirmation that as this motion has now passed, the Government must respond with a statement in this place on this matter within the next 12 weeks.

Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously it is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for the Government to respond. The vote has been taken. The House has shown its view, but it is for the Government to respond accordingly.

Armed Forces Covenant: Northern Ireland

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the valuable contribution made by men and women from Northern Ireland to our armed forces, including some of the best recruited Reserve Units in the UK and reaffirms its commitment to ensure that the Armed Forces Covenant is fully implemented in Northern Ireland.
I am delighted to move the motion in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Democratic Unionist party. As a party, we are proud of the contribution made by the men and women from Northern Ireland who have served the United Kingdom in many theatres of conflict across the globe and, indeed, especially in Northern Ireland itself. We salute their sacrifice, but also the sacrifice of all members of our armed forces, who courageously serve this country in many ways and in many parts of the world.
It is estimated that some 300,000 military personnel were deployed in Northern Ireland in the course of Operation Banner, which was the longest-running military operation in the history of the British Army. A significant proportion of the veterans who served in Operation Banner currently reside in Northern Ireland. That includes in the region of between 56,000 and 60,000 who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment or the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service battalions, as well as many other units with which Ulster men and women served in the course of Operation Banner.
The Ulster University is currently conducting a study to identify the number of veterans resident in Northern Ireland and requiring welfare support. The initial reports published by the research team at the university make interesting reading, and I commend them to Ministers and the team at the Ministry of Defence. The reports and the research undertaken by the Ulster University provide an interesting insight into the needs of veterans in Northern Ireland and seek to quantify the extent of that need.
In addition to Operation Banner, we have an increasing proportion of armed forces personnel from Northern Ireland who have been deployed on operations in other parts of the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and other places such as Mali, Sierra Leone and so on. They include many members of our reserve units in Northern Ireland. I note that the Minister responsible for reserves, the right hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), is in his place. I pay tribute to our reserve forces in Northern Ireland. We have some of the best-recruited reserve units in the United Kingdom, such as the 2nd Battalion Royal Irish Regiment, which is headquartered at Thiepval barracks in my constituency in Lisburn. It is one of the best-recruited infantry reserve units in the United Kingdom. We have HMS Hibernia, following a proud tradition of Ulster men and women who have served with the Royal Navy, which is also based at Thiepval barracks in my constituency, and 502 Ulster Squadron of the Royal Air Force, located at Aldergrove, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan). We will soon be joining them in celebrating the centenary of the formation of the Royal Air Force.
We commend the men and women who have given up valuable time to serve in our reserve units and those who leave their families to go and serve with the regular armed forces, in many parts of the world.

Sylvia Hermon: Does the right hon. Gentleman share the painful disappointment that I feel that there are so few Members on the Government and Opposition Benches this afternoon for this important debate, bearing in mind the enormous sacrifice made by so many members of the British Army, particularly those in the UDR, who were often part-time farmers who gave their lives and paid the ultimate sacrifice during the troubles in Northern Ireland? I personally have to say how disappointed I am that there is not a better turnout for today’s debate.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Lady for that comment. It is my experience in this House—this is my 21st year as a Member of Parliament—that, across the House of Commons, I find nothing but respect for our armed forces, especially those who have served in Northern Ireland. When I have attended events here in Parliament where we have remembered that sacrifice, I have always been struck by the depth of the gratitude felt by right hon. and hon. Members for that service, notwithstanding the disappointment that the hon. Lady feels at the attendance today, although that is not untypical for debates here of any kind. I do not honestly believe that it reflects any disrespect on the part of this House for the men and women who serve and have served in our armed forces.
A recent report published by the World Health Organisation on post-traumatic stress disorder found that Northern Ireland has a higher incidence of PTSD and trauma-related illnesses than other conflict-related country in the world. That includes places such as Lebanon and Israel. Remarkably, the study found that nearly 40% of people in Northern Ireland had been involved in some kind of conflict-related traumatic incident. The survey estimated that violence had been a distinct cause of mental health problems for about 18,000 people in Northern Ireland.
Against that backdrop, the health and social care system in Northern Ireland has sought to provide support and treatment service to people with mental health problems, and especially ones linked to trauma, but I have to say that it is struggling to cope with the pressures. As Ministers will know, it is often the case for service personnel that PTSD does not really make an impact for several years or more after the original incident. We are therefore seeing a pattern in Northern Ireland now of those who served in our armed forces developing mental health problems in later life, as well as physical injury-related medical problems, and that is putting real pressure on local health services. We feel that that needs to be more closely addressed.
Of course, that is not unique to the armed forces—the civilian population in Northern Ireland suffered dreadfully, and there is ample evidence of a high incidence of post-conflict trauma among the civilian population—but it highlights why the armed forces covenant is very important in Northern Ireland. It is perhaps more important in Northern Ireland than in some other parts of the United Kingdom, because it is essential that the men and women who have served our nation get the support that they require.
I am concerned, as a Member of Parliament, that I am dealing on a regular basis with veterans of Operation Banner who find themselves in trouble with the law because they have developed post-traumatic mental health problems and sadly get caught up in behavioural difficulties that perhaps are not entirely of their making but often result in them falling foul of the law. That is an increasing phenomenon, yet our mental health services do not appear to be adequately resourced to cope with it.
We feel that there is a need to do something. I know that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly have been pressing for a specialist and properly resourced unit to address some of the issues linked to mental health and what we call the troubles in Northern Ireland. Those who serve in the armed forces in particular need that support, and they are not getting the level of support that they require, so that is an important element of the armed forces covenant.
The current arrangements in Northern Ireland tend to vary from those in other parts of the United Kingdom, partly due to the constraints of our peculiar form of devolved government in Northern Ireland. The point is this: until just over a year ago, we had a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland comprising two main parties, one being the Democratic Unionist party and the other being Sinn Féin, and frankly, Sinn Féin has a difficulty when it comes to the armed forces covenant. It has declined to recognise the covenant and the idea that it has a responsibility for implementing the covenant, and its Ministers in charge of Departments have at times resisted efforts on our part to see the very modest objectives of the covenant implemented in Northern Ireland.
I remind the House that the core principle of the covenant is to ensure that those who have served in our armed forces are not disadvantaged by virtue of that service when it comes to the provision of healthcare, housing, education and so on. It is not that they are given special treatment or that they are advantaged over the rest of society, but that they are not disadvantaged. Yet the attitude of Sinn Féin to our armed forces means that, frankly, they are being disadvantaged in Northern Ireland. They are not getting the support that they deserve and require when it comes to healthcare treatment.
I have recently dealt with cases in my own constituency of those who have served in the armed forces, but who are languishing on waiting lists—ever increasing waiting lists, sadly, in Northern Ireland—and cannot get access to treatment. When they seek to get treatment that could be available to them in other parts of the United Kingdom, they are told, “We will not fund your travel, and we will not fund your accommodation to have this treatment in Birmingham or Manchester”. They would be entitled to receive such treatment if they lived in, for example, the constituency of my colleague the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). We believe that this issue needs to be addressed.

Conor McGinn: Armed forces veterans and their families are an integral part of the community that I represent, and many of them served in Northern Ireland. They would like better provision of services for them in St Helens, but they certainly feel that the colleagues whom they served alongside in Northern Ireland should not be disadvantaged just because of where they live. Like me, they fully support the armed forces covenant being extended fully to Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and, if I may say so, for the interest that he has taken over the years in matters pertaining to Northern Ireland and those who have served in the armed forces, which is greatly appreciated.
I want to give credit where it is due, and in fairness to the Government, we do have the Royal Irish Regiment aftercare service in Northern Ireland. It was established specifically to provide welfare support to those who have served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service. It is a valuable aftercare service, and it is valued by those who have benefited from it. The difficulty we have is that the life of the Royal Irish Regiment aftercare service is approaching its end date, and there is no indication from the Government that it will be renewed.
I am concerned about that, because the service provides valuable support to those who have served. As I have said, somewhere in the region of 55,000 to 60,000 veterans have served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service battalions. If we lose the Royal Irish Regiment aftercare service and the joined-up approach it brings to providing welfare support to veterans, that will increase the deficit in support for veterans in Northern Ireland. I look to the Government—I am happy to meet Ministers to discuss the need for this again—to extend the work of the Royal Irish Regiment aftercare service beyond the end of the period for which it was originally established.
If I may, I will concentrate a little more on what I see as the kernel of the problem. When the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was passed by this House, and by this Parliament, following the Belfast agreement, section 75 dealt with the whole issue of equality in Northern Ireland. It identifies a number of groupings within our society in Northern Ireland where there should be the promotion of equality of opportunity, including
“between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group…between men and women…between persons with a disability and persons without; and…between persons with dependants and persons without.”
I would like to see veterans of our armed forces added as a specific group to the list of those for whom it is a requirement of every Department in Northern Ireland to promote equality of opportunity. That would at least move us in the right direction of addressing the deficit by identifying veterans as a group that ought to be provided with support when they need it, and it would compel Ministers in Departments in Northern Ireland to act in accordance with the objectives of the armed forces covenant.

Emma Little Pengelly: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one big benefit of adding that group to section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is that it would introduce a requirement for every Government policy to be screened for its impact on that group? Whether it was an educational or health policy, there would be mandatory screening of its impact on armed forces personnel and their families. That would put policy makers across all Departments in a much more informed position to ensure that the needs of armed forces personnel and their families are integrated at the earliest possible opportunity in policy making.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I regard my hon. Friend pas an expert on this issue, having worked with her in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.  She has devoted a lot of time and energy to promoting this kind of provision right across our society, not least in respect of veterans and the victims and survivors of our troubled past.
I refer the House to paragraph 36 of the Defence Committee report, “The Armed Forces Covenant in Action? Part 1: Military Casualties”, which states:
“The provisions of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 prevents the Department of Health…and the Health and Social Care…sector in Northern Ireland in providing war veterans with priority over other individuals with respect to healthcare treatment.”
The use of the term “priority” refers, of course, to ensuring that people are not disadvantaged by virtue of their service, rather than to jumping the waiting list queue—that is not what veterans are asking for. What veterans are asking for is not to be disadvantaged by virtue of their service. It is evident even in the findings of the Defence Committee that that happens. This is something that has been identified not just by the Democratic Unionist party but by other colleagues in this House.

Sylvia Hermon: It is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to intervene again. He will know very well that we have the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and, quite separately from that, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Will he take a few moments to explain to the House whether either, or indeed both, of those commissions support the extension of section 75 to include veterans? That would be very helpful for the House.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I have met the Equality Commission about this issue, but I am not sure that I have met the Human Rights Commission. As far as I am aware, they tend to take the view that they do not believe that section 75 presents the problem that we believe exists. However, I have ample evidence to support our view that it is an impediment, even if it is based on perception rather than reality. We believe that amending section 75 would clear up any question of ambiguity on this issue and offer clarity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) said, on policy development across all Departments. We urge the Government to examine the potential to amend section 75 for that purpose.
I refer the House to the “Report of the Task Force on the Military Covenant”, which stated that service personnel based in Northern Ireland
“are disadvantaged more than their contemporaries elsewhere… For example, Service families in the province are prevented from identifying themselves as such due to the security situation. This can cause difficulties for partners in explaining their career history to prospective employers and for Service children in obtaining the necessary support in schools”.
I have found that to be the case. I know that we have come a long way from the dark days of our troubled past, but there remains in Northern Ireland a culture of fear when it comes to openly identifying as someone who serves with the armed forces or as a family member of someone who does so. We cannot ignore that that is the reality of the experience of many serving personnel and veterans of the armed forces in Northern Ireland.
In addition, we believe there is substance in the call by many veterans in Northern Ireland for the establishment of a specialist facility to offer support to veterans. I commend, on behalf of my party, the excellent work of many of the military-linked charities in Northern Ireland. The Royal British Legion raises more money in Northern Ireland through its poppy appeal than any other region of the United Kingdom. We have SSAFA and Combat Stress, which does excellent work with limited resources while struggling to cope with the demand on its services. ABF the Soldiers’ Charity and others all do excellent work, but we would like to see a specialist facility established in Northern Ireland to bring together the resources needed to offer welfare support to veterans. That centre might be supported by some of the charities to which I have referred.
I want to make reference to community covenants in Northern Ireland. The Minister will know that they are an integral part of the armed forces covenant. I am delighted to report that since we last debated this issue in the House of Commons, a number of our new—not so new now, I suppose—district councils have adopted the community covenant, including Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council in my own constituency, and Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council. We welcome this development, because it means that local communities are now able to become more involved in providing support to the armed forces community and veterans. This will help to change the culture around our service personnel and veterans, and help them to see that the community is behind them, offering support at local government level.
I want to draw my remarks to a close by summarising what we would like the Government to do to ensure the full implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. I remind the House that this was part of the confidence and supply agreement between the Democratic Unionist party and the Conservative party. We identified full implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland as a priority for the Government. In that context, I repeat our call for the aftercare service currently operated by the Royal Irish Regiment in Northern Ireland, a vital welfare support service for those who served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish Regiment Home Service, to be extended, with consideration given to enhancing the level of support available to veterans in Northern Ireland who did not serve in the UDR and Royal Irish Home Service but who are equally deserving of welfare support.
Secondly, we want the Government to amend section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to make specific provision for veterans of our armed forces to ensure that Government Departments and agencies in Northern Ireland have to have regard to the needs of veterans in bringing forward and implementing policies. We believe that in the absence of a devolved Government, that is the right way forward to ensure Government Departments and agencies in Northern Ireland are delivering for veterans, and have a requirement to take account of the needs of veterans in developing their policies.
One of the reports commissioned by the former Prime Minister, on transitioning for veterans, recommended that the Government appoint an armed forces champion in Northern Ireland. I know that this has been talked about, but we would like to see the proposal taken  forward. We continue to encourage our local councils to adopt the community covenant. We hear so much about respect from our absent colleagues in Sinn Féin, but the councils in Northern Ireland dominated by Sinn Féin have yet to adopt the community covenant. I think that this disrespects the men and women from Northern Ireland who serve in our armed forces. If Sinn Féin wants to be taken seriously on respect, it could take this step. This does not require Stormont. It does not require an Assembly. It does not require an Executive. Every council on which Sinn Féin has a strong presence could, right now, bring forward a proposal to adopt the community covenant. That would show real respect to the men and women who serve in our armed forces.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to move this motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party.

Mark Lancaster: Let me begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on his remarks. He is very much a champion for veterans in Northern Ireland, as indeed are so many of his party. His passion for this subject is well known and certainly came across in his speech. I join him in paying tribute to the enormous service and sacrifice of all the members of our armed forces from Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the absence of some colleagues. I say with the greatest respect to the shadow Labour Northern Ireland Ministers on the Front Bench that the absence of any shadow Defence Ministers has not gone unnoticed by the House. I am absolutely sure that that is not meant as any disrespect to the House. None the less it is a certain disappointment, considering the subject of our debate.
This year in particular, we remember the unparalleled contribution of Northern Ireland veterans to the spring offensive on the western front a century ago. We also recall their heroism in more recent operations, from the turmoil of the troubles to operations in Afghanistan and against Daesh extremists in Iraq. It has been my privilege to serve alongside many soldiers from Northern Ireland. Their passion and commitment has always been exemplary. As a reservist, I note with pride that more than twice as many Northern Irish citizens volunteer for the reserves, compared with the national average. For example, 502 Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force was only founded in 2012 but has grown rapidly to a strength of some 130. Alongside the other regular and reserve units across Northern Ireland, they embody the potent mix of our armed forces.
We are determined to ensure that all those who serve with our armed forces have the support that they need, from whatever part of the United Kingdom they come. In discussing these issues, we should start by recognising that veterans who live in Northern Ireland are entitled to receive the same level of support from the Ministry of Defence as those who live in England, Scotland and Wales. If any member of the armed forces, past or present, or their family wishes to access our recently launched veterans’ gateway or our new freephone Combat Stress mental health helpline, they can do so.
As hon. Friends will be aware, the covenant is a promise not just from Defence, but from the whole Government on behalf of our nation. It is a recognition  that every part of our nation has a moral obligation to help those who lay their lives on the line for us—a duty to guarantee that no one who is serving, or who has served, for this country should suffer any disadvantage as a result of that service in relation to the rest of society. The covenant, however, is not prescriptive. Its voluntary nature means that there has never been a one-size-fits-all approach. Different parts of the country take a different approach, tailored to their particular circumstances. In the case of Northern Ireland, the covenant is being applied in a manner that suits the unique nature of its circumstances.
Four years on from the last time that we debated this subject, I am pleased to see that progress has been made, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley acknowledged. I had the great pleasure of visiting Northern Ireland twice last year, when I was the Minister responsible for veterans and personnel. I saw at first hand the needs of the armed forces community there and the commendable work being undertaken on behalf of our personnel. I also had the enormous pleasure of attending Armed Forces Day in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who has also been a sterling champion for veterans and members of the armed forces for many a year in Bangor.

Sylvia Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because it allows me to put on the record how delighted and proud we were that he was present in Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the United Kingdom, for Armed Forces Day, and we hope he has kept the instructions on how to get back, because although the Prime Minister only has time to come occasionally, it is wonderful when MOD Ministers come and remind everyone there that Northern Ireland is indeed an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Mark Lancaster: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I was actually in Northern Ireland a couple of weeks ago, as indeed was my right hon. Friend the veterans Minister, who was there for Remembrance Sunday.
Whether it is the work of the newly formed Veterans Support Office, operating in tandem with the Confederation of Service Charities to improve co-ordination between statutory bodies and service charities; the work of veterans champions, located in each of the 11 local authorities in Northern Ireland and linked with the VSO, tirelessly keeping the concerns of personnel in the community spotlight; or the work building on the bespoke aftercare service referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and provided by the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish, after referral from the Regional Personnel Recovery Unit within 38 (Irish) Brigade, there is plenty going on, but as we have heard, that is not to pretend that there are not still significant challenges to overcome.
When I visited Northern Ireland last March, I also had the sombre privilege of meeting some of those who had served during the troubles and, as a result, suffered from profound mental health issues. It is a reminder that for too many veterans living in Northern Ireland the scars of experience remain all too raw, as was equally highlighted by the right hon. Gentleman. That is why the MOD is supporting the Ulster University study, funded by the Forces in Mind Trust, into the needs of the Northern Ireland service community.
At the same time, we know that there is a need to continue raising awareness of the help already out there and, in particular, the different ways to access funding. We have already seen the LIBOR veterans fund providing £600,000 for the Somme nursing home in Belfast, and small grants have been made to support community integration projects and recreation facilities for the armed forces community in Northern Ireland. By comparison with other parts of the UK, however, applications for covenant funding remain low. That is why we have committed to providing £300,000 over five years to improve the capacity and capability of local authorities and other bodies in Northern Ireland to bid for covenant funding.
Some hon. Members will feel we should go further still—some might suggest it is time to introduce further statutory instruments to increase uptake—but although I am ready to listen to the arguments on a case-by-case basis, I would make the point that the problem is not about the lack of mechanisms. Let us not forget, as has been mentioned, that besides the instruments already in place, there is section 75. I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but it is a cornerstone of the Belfast agreement. It is about more than the avoidance of discrimination; it charges public authorities to actively seek ways to encourage greater equality of opportunity and good relations. It is the view of the Government that the armed forces covenant does not contravene section 75. As was highlighted by the exchange between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Down, that is also the view of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: For the purpose of clarity, my contention is not that the armed forces covenant contravenes section 75; it is that Government Departments in Northern Ireland believe that implementing the covenant may contravene it. I believe, therefore, that adding veterans as a clear category in section 75 would provide the clarity required to put this beyond doubt.

Mark Lancaster: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman makes his point in a perfectly reasonable manner. He should be reassured that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was here when he made that point earlier, and I know that she took on board his comments. Perhaps, for now, he should seek some reassurance in that.
For me, even more important than the legal devices is the willingness of different groups across Northern Ireland—local authorities, businesses and the third sector—to come together and partner up. Slowly but surely, we are seeing that start to happen, but we need to accelerate the process and encourage different organisations to combine their resources and raise awareness of the help on offer. On that note, I should add that if Members are aware of any disadvantage suffered by members of the armed forces in Northern Ireland, they should report it to me or to colleagues in the Ministry of Defence so that we can attempt to address them quickly.
Let me reassure Members, and every single man and woman in our armed forces, that we are utterly committed and determined to ensure that all those who have contributed so much to our nation continue to receive  the support that they deserve. In the four years since our last debate, much has already improved, but today’s debate will only spur us on in our quest to extend the protection of the covenant to all.

Owen Smith: It is a great pleasure, and an honour, for me—as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—to respond to the debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. The fact that members of our defence team are not present implies no disrespect on the part of the Labour Front Bench. They will be coming along shortly, and I am sure that they will take great interest in the debate.
Let me make clear at the outset that we are 100% in favour of the armed forces covenant. It is an excellent measure, introduced by the present Government; they built on the superb work done by the previous Labour Government, whose initial military covenant was passed in 2000. It is an important part of the way in which we as a country acknowledge the excellent service, and sacrifice, of members of our armed forces, not only in Northern Ireland but all over the world. The Labour party is four-square behind it, and four-square behind its equal application throughout the United Kingdom.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), who opened the debate so eloquently, for his consistent support for armed forces members and veterans, and for consistently raising the question of potential anomalies between the application of the covenant in Northern Ireland and its application in the rest of the United Kingdom, which he has done with great vigour and sincerity.
While I acknowledge the Minister’s contention that there might be security and political reasons for the different application of the covenant in Northern Ireland—which echoed what has been said by previous Conservative Defence Ministers—the reality is that some differences are not just about security and politics. There are administrative and legal differences between the framework in Northern Ireland and the framework in the rest of the UK, and there is the question of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and which I hope to address later in my speech.
It should also be borne in mind that there is a particular set of problems for some representatives of the armed forces. There are Northern Ireland veterans who went through traumatic times during their service, often related to the nature of the areas in which they served and the process of locating and relocating in communities. There are about 150,000 veterans in Northern Ireland, and the levels of post-traumatic stress disorder are higher than the average. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley made some good points about the need for more support for the mental health of veterans. I am sure that the Minister heard what he said and will acknowledge that there should be better support, not just in Northern Ireland but across the board.
The central point of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, however, was that section 75 of the 1998 Act militates against the equal application of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. I know that the Government do not agree, and believe that the two are reconcilable. We share that view: we  believe that it is possible for the covenant to be applied properly in Northern Ireland, and for that to be reconciled with the proper application of section 75.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley whether the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission took the view that section 75 needed to be amended to be consistent with the proper application of the covenant. The answer of course is that they do not take that view. They viewed it perfectly possible for the two things to be applied, and I know that because I had a meeting only this afternoon with the chief executive of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to discuss that very point. I further cite the view of a former Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who has said that 93% of the armed forces covenant is being applied equitably in Northern Ireland.
I finally point to the view of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, because although we have not debated this issue in the House for four years, there was an excellent report by the Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) that went into this issue in great detail. It assessed it and took a huge amount of evidence from all the bodies involved, and came to the conclusion that there are undoubtedly areas where specific policies applied in Great Britain are not implemented in Northern Ireland for the reasons I have mentioned—the legal, administrative, political and security differences—and other areas where there should be improvements, such as around access to IVF and mental health. I would be intrigued to know whether the Minister has anything to say about the changes to IVF cycles and the availability of them to former armed forces veterans, because the Government have previously promised to look at Northern Ireland versus elsewhere in that regard.

Conor McGinn: I have been robust in this House in my defence of the Good Friday agreement, and very occasionally my interpretation of it is slightly different from that of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland, but on this matter I am very clear: not only is there not a contradiction between the full implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement, but the logical outworking of the spirit of the Good Friday agreement is that veterans, their families and serving personnel are looked after.

Owen Smith: Of course, and equality is central to the Good Friday agreement, which is why it is so important that the armed forces covenant, which makes it clear that no armed forces personnel or their families should be in any way disadvantaged by virtue of their currently serving in, or having been in, the armed forces, must not in any way be out of keeping with the application of equalities legislation—section 75 in particular—which is absolutely critical to the underpinning of the Good Friday agreement. That is why I am so pleased to hear the Minister repeat the Government’s view that they do not think there is any need to amend section 75 because they believe the two things are entirely reconcilable.

Sylvia Hermon: Given the hon. Gentleman’s obvious support—and, I take it, his party’s support—for the military covenant throughout the United Kingdom and  indeed for community covenants, I am curious about what is said when he meets representatives of Sinn Féin; I am quite sure he meets Sinn Féin MPs when they visit Portcullis House and Westminster, although they do not take their seats here. How often has the hon. Gentleman raised the military covenant and urged Sinn Féin to show more respect for the military covenant and the community covenant?

Owen Smith: I do, obviously, regularly meet all the political parties in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Féin, and I have raised the question of the military covenant and the perception that insufficient respect is paid to members of the armed forces in the way in which the community covenant in particular is applied, and I will continue to raise that in my conversations with Sinn Féin.
In conclusion, I shall refer the House to a few important remarks made in evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on this question. It had much greater opportunity to debate this issue at length. One of those important pieces of evidence came from the former Northern Ireland Executive Minister Edwin Poots MLA of the Democratic Unionist party. He said that he took the view that
“no one is supposed to be treated better, and indeed, no one is supposed to be treated worse. Army personnel will not then be treated any worse than anybody else”,
making it clear that the point about the covenant is to guarantee that there is no disadvantage to armed services personnel in Northern Ireland or elsewhere.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary for giving way. I appreciate his comments. May I quote from a letter dated 15 December 2016 from the most recent Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, who is now the leader of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland? She wrote:
“The Armed Forces Covenant has been adopted by England, Scotland and Wales, to provide equal access to health care where it can be linked to military service, serving personnel, their families and those who leave the Military Forces. The Covenant has not been adopted here”—
meaning Northern Ireland—
“as health care arrangements are delivered on an equitable basis to all members of the community.”
That is a clear reference—I asked the Minister about this—to section 75. With the greatest of respect to the shadow Secretary of State, Sinn Féin’s view is that the armed forces covenant has not been adopted and that section 75 excludes its implementation.

Owen Smith: I can say with equal clarity to the right hon. Gentleman that the leader of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland is wrong in that regard, because the armed forces covenant has been adopted in Northern Ireland and should be implemented. The Opposition are clear about that.

Emma Little Pengelly: Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

Owen Smith: I will give way one more time and then draw my remarks to a conclusion.

Emma Little Pengelly: I feel the need to say strongly that the armed forces covenant has not been formally adopted in Northern Ireland. I was a special adviser in the First Minister’s office, working with Executive colleagues,  and I sat down with and repeatedly asked Sinn Féin for the covenant to go on the Executive’s agenda and for it to be agreed. Sinn Féin refused time and again, not for any logical reason and not on the basis of equality, but due to its historical opposition to the British armed forces. I sat there and had those conversations. The armed forces covenant has not been formally adopted in Northern Ireland.

Owen Smith: The point is that this is clearly a politicised and, at some level, a political issue. Clearly, points are being scored on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland. The key point I want to make is that the Government’s view, which we share, is that—

Jim Shannon: rose—

Owen Smith: I am going to draw my remarks to a conclusion. The point is that 90% or so of the covenant is being applied properly in Northern Ireland, but there are some gaps. I have raised some with the Minister, and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley has raised others. Mental health needs to be considered in particular.
In practical terms, the view expressed repeatedly to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee when it assessed the situation is that the reality is that no material disadvantage is being suffered by veterans in Northern Ireland. In support of that conclusion, Colonel Richard Gordon of SSAFA said to the Committee that he did not think that there any disadvantages to the armed forces community in Northern Ireland in respect of the covenant, and Brian Maguire of the Royal British Legion said:
“I cannot point to a single case, in all the cases we have dealt with in our time, where I can say for sure that the individual would have been better treated had they been living elsewhere in the United Kingdom.”
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned what an important institution the Royal British Legion is in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and I completely support him. Alongside SSAFA, it is one of the most important organisations providing support to veterans, and it does not support the conclusions that he drew in his remarks. The Royal British Legion supports the conclusions that I draw, and we need the covenant to be implemented properly. I therefore support the Government in not changing section 75, because it is entirely consistent with the application of the covenant to Northern Ireland.

David Davies: I welcome this debate and the speech of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). It was hard to disagree with anything that he had to say, because he reminded us of the sacrifice of veterans across the UK, including in Northern Ireland. When we think about veterans, particularly on the mainland, we often tend to conjure up visions of either those brave warriors who defended us during the second world war, many of whom I am glad to say are still with us, or the younger men and women who served more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq. We sometimes tend to forget about the many other conflicts in which we have been involved, such as Korea, the Falklands, Bosnia and, of course, Northern Ireland. I am not an expert, but that must have been one  of the most difficult experiences of all, because many of the reservists to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred were living with the threat of violence 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
There are people in this House who have served on frontlines around the world. I have never done so, but I imagine that being on active service must be incredibly stressful. Once that six-month tour of duty finishes, however, perhaps people can start to relax again, but that was not the case for so many people in Northern Ireland, particularly those who lived there. We have a particular debt of gratitude to all of them and to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue.
I feel very strongly about this issue. I am the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which initiated an inquiry into the care of veterans in Wales and looked at the armed forces covenant. I believe that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) was a member of the Committee at the time, so he will be aware of the report. It was a good report, because it showed that good practice was going on across the whole of the United Kingdom. There is no room to make any political points in that regard. We visited Scotland and met Keith Brown, a Scottish National party Member of the Scottish Parliament who is himself a former member of the Royal Marines. He spoke about the very good work that was being done in Scotland. Local authorities in Wales, led by all political parties, also support the armed forces covenant. We heard evidence from the then Labour Minister, and since then we have heard positive statements from the current Labour Minister, Mark Drakeford. A lot of good practice is going on across the United Kingdom.
I will briefly remind Members of some of our report’s conclusions. We thought that the one-stop shops for veterans in Scotland were an extremely good idea and that they could be considered in Northern Ireland and Wales. We heard evidence that those who had been moving around on service were sometimes disadvantaged when making an application for social housing. We heard about veterans experiencing problems getting paperwork transferred from the Ministry of Defence to their NHS. I say “their” NHS because there are, of course, four different ones across the United Kingdom, which can add to the problem. I hope that the Minister will look at that. People also have problems getting their children into school because they do not live in the catchment area. For those and many other reasons, it is very important that we implement all aspects of the armed forces covenant right across the United Kingdom.
I have a few, not complaints or criticisms, but thoughts. I do not want them to be seen as in any way critical of what the Government are doing, because overall I think they are doing very well. There were three things that worried me a little when we undertook that inquiry. The first is the definition of “veteran”. Under the current terminology, I could define myself as an armed forces veteran, having spent about 18 months in the Territorial Army in the late 1980s, during which time I am afraid I did not do anything of any great note, other than run around the Brecon Beacons on a Sunday evening and enjoy a cheap pint afterwards. Yes, it is a worthy enough thing to do, but at that time there was no suggestion that the TA would ever be called up to active service, as is now the case.
People who spend a few months in the Army, perhaps without even completing their basic training, can come out and call themselves veterans. I am not really comfortable with that—I do not think that it is absolutely right—although it would be rather difficult to pin down an exact definition, because there are people who have spent less than 12 months in the Army who may have been on active service, and they certainly should qualify. Perhaps we need to think about that.
Secondly—this came to me partly because of the definition issue—I am concerned about some of the charities currently working with armed forces veterans. I hasten to add that I do not mean those mentioned by hon. Members today, including the Royal British Legion, Combat Stress and SSAFA, which are excellent charities. I have certain concerns, however, about some that have been set up by people who are well-meaning but who do not have the relevant experience, and I am afraid that others have been set up by people who are trying to cash in on public support for the armed forces. I am currently involved in what could become a criminal prosecution, having challenged people who were in combat clothing—one of them had spent a few months in the Army and the other had not—who had links to an unpleasant, so-called far-right organisation, and who were collecting money in my hometown of Monmouth during the remembrance period. I am very concerned that some organisations that are setting themselves up as charitable concerns for armed forces veterans may have sinister connections to extremist political groups or may simply be trying to make money—or some combination of the two. That needs to be looked at, and I am not certain the Charity Commission and Cobseo are doing enough to crack down on it.
My other concern goes back to the definition of “veteran”. We rightly use that term to define anyone who has served in any branch of the armed forces, but other people, particularly in Northern Ireland, also ought to qualify. Obviously, I refer to members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but I also refer to the forgotten service—those who have worked in the Prison Service. They also face and have faced violence and intimidation on a regular basis, and would be worthy of some of the care we are suggesting should go to members of the armed forces.
I do not want to make any criticisms of any Government or any political party in this debate. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley has secured it, and I hope that all the issues he has raised today will be properly addressed by the Government. I am confident that with today’s two Ministers, both of whom have very relevant experience of the armed forces, those concerns will be addressed.

Carol Monaghan: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on his passionate, knowledgeable speech, which kicked off this afternoon’s debate. I declare an interest: my husband was an officer in Her Majesty’s Royal Navy. I have mentioned that many times before, but I probably have not mentioned that he is an  Ulsterman.

Jim Shannon: It took an Ulsterman to win her heart.

Carol Monaghan: He was a very special Ulsterman.
The armed forces covenant is a statement of the moral obligation that exists between the nations of the UK, the Government and the armed forces. It was enshrined in law for the first time in 2011. Specifically, it outlines two core principles. The first is that current or former members of the armed forces, or their  families,
“should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services.”
The second is that:
“Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for…the injured and the bereaved.”
However, as the Armed Forces Act 2011 does not create legally enforceable rights for service personnel, across the UK it remains a statement of intent rather than a statement of action. It is a statement of intent to which members of the armed forces have no recourse, so we are letting service personnel down.
The right hon. Gentleman described the particular culture that prevents members of the armed forces and veterans in Northern Ireland from identifying themselves. I have experienced that personally when visiting Ulster with my husband and having to check under our car for devices, so I appreciate the situation we are talking about. The right hon. Gentleman described in some detail the fact that although many charities work with veterans in Northern Ireland, a lack of funding and a lack of transparency in some places with the veterans means there are serious issues. However, I believe this is part of a wider problem across the UK.
We welcome the progress that has been made with the new ministerial covenant and veterans board. In recent years, society has become far more aware and more understanding of the effects of military service on the health, mental and physical, of those who choose to serve, and on their relationships with their families and communities. However, it must be recognised that for veterans in Northern Ireland very particular circumstances apply, and for local councils to show reluctance to fully implement the armed forces covenant is simply letting these veterans down.
Veterans are an asset to society, and they deserve our thanks respect and support. In Scotland alone, every year approximately 1,800 men and women complete their military service and settle in our communities, many with their families. We have an ambition to make Scotland the destination of choice for service leavers and their families. For almost a decade, the Scottish Government’s Scottish veterans fund has made a real difference to the lives of the armed forces community in Scotland and has provided £1.1 million to a host of veterans and ex-service charities that offer advice, help and support. There is no doubt that that lead should be followed by other UK nations.
In Northern Ireland, there has been long-standing criticism of the lack of implementation of the armed forces covenant. We are of course all sensitive to the tensions that still exist in parts of Northern Ireland, particularly in respect of the Army, but that must not be used to avoid providing the service that personnel and veterans deserve and require. While I am talking about tensions, I wish to mention the outstanding work that has been done to break down barriers in respect of policing in Northern Ireland. The transition from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the Police Service  of Northern Ireland has enabled the police in Northern Ireland to have a more inclusive outlook and to be widely accepted in every sector of society.
Members of the republican nationalist community serve with distinction in the RAF and the Royal Navy. For some, though, the Army is still viewed with suspicion. A recruitment drive aimed at alienated communities would undoubtedly improve diversity and community representation in the Army. With movement on this issue, I believe that cross-party support for personnel and veterans would increase—that is, of course, if power-sharing is ever restored.
Much of this debate goes beyond Northern Ireland. What makes this issue infuriating is the voicelessness of personnel and veterans. We believe that personnel should be properly represented in the military and among defence policy decision makers. An armed forces representative body that is on a statutory footing is the norm for many other countries, including Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany. Such a representative body would give voice to our armed forces and would be able to liaise directly with the Government and ensure that personnel and veterans throughout the UK are central to defence thinking. That would be a major step forward for personnel across the UK and would give a much stronger voice to veterans in Northern Ireland.
The UK Government should honour the armed forces covenant tenet of “no disadvantage”. The covenant commits the UK Government to removing, where possible, disadvantage experienced as a result of service, and that includes for serving personnel and veterans in Northern Ireland.

Douglas Ross: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on bringing this debate to the House. I agree with the Minister for the Armed Forces that the right hon. Gentleman’s speech was passionate and thoughtful, and I enjoyed sitting through it. He was correct to pay tribute to the reserve forces in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to those in the reserve forces throughout the United Kingdom. He also mentioned how the Royal British Legion in Northern Ireland raised more money for the poppy appeal than any other part of the UK. I took that as a challenge, because we Scots do not like to be beaten at many things, so perhaps in future the Royal British Legion in Scotland will engage in a bit of healthy competition with its Northern Ireland counterpart.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) mentioned the sparse attendance in the Chamber today. If I exclude myself, perhaps I can suggest that what is important is quality rather than quantity. At least every part of the United Kingdom has been represented in the debate, which is very positive.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) spoke about his Welsh Affairs Committee’s visit to Scotland and the work it did there. He was right to highlight the good work that is being done in Scotland. I will focus my remarks on the good work that is done both Scotland-wide and particularly in Moray.
The armed forces covenant is taken very seriously in my constituency, which has had a significant military footprint for many decades. Unlike other speakers so  far in this debate, I want to put it on record that our personnel and our veterans do outstanding service We in this place should never tire of highlighting and praising what they have done and continue to do for their country.
I was delighted when, in October last year, Jo Lenihan was appointed armed forces covenant development officer serving the Moray and Highland military communities. Moray and Highland Councils are to be congratulated on joining forces to secure the post, which is funded by the Ministry of Defence’s covenant fund. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) said, the covenant is to fulfil the Government’s promise to those serving and those who have served that they and their families are guaranteed to be treated fairly.
As Members will know, Moray has provided a home to the 39 Engineer Regiment at Kinloss barracks since 2012, when the Army took over the base from the RAF. Further east along the coast, RAF Lossiemouth is one of the UK’s two RAF quick reaction alert stations. It is the base for three Typhoon combat aircraft squadrons and an RAF regiment. From 2020, Lossiemouth will also be the host to the new P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft operated by two historic squadrons: 120 squadron was originally an anti-submarine unit in world war two, while the origins of 201 squadron date back to the first world war.
I will focus my remarks in today’s debate on the incredibly strong links between the armed forces community and the wider community in Moray, and that is what Jo Lenihan is working hard on to strengthen even further. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was not sure whether you were confused by what I was saying.

Rosie Winterton: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that this debate is about the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. He is probably making the link between Moray and Northern Ireland, but I am sure that he will want to focus back on the subject of this debate.

Douglas Ross: Absolutely. I will take the hint, Madam Deputy Speaker. Whenever a referee looks confused at you, you know there is something wrong. I take that glare in the way that it was intended. What I hope to do in my short remarks is to explain how successful our covenant has been in Moray and why I understand that DUP Members want that success to be replicated in Northern Ireland.
In Moray, the links begin with the youngest members of our community—I hope that that can be replicated in Northern Ireland. Only a week ago, 39 Engineer Regiment hosted pupils from Forres Academy and Kinloss Primary School.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Douglas Ross: I will give way, although I am worried.

Angus MacNeil: Let me help the hon. Gentleman relate his speech to Ireland. The original derivation of the word “Elgin”, which is in his constituency, is actually “little Ireland”. So there you go—some help there.

Douglas Ross: I have been in this place for about nine months and that is the first helpful contribution that I have had from a Scottish National party Member. It may be another nine months or nine years before another one comes along, but it is great to have Elgin mentioned in this place.
We have also had 280 Moray schoolchildren attending a world war one centenary roadshow run by a national charity. As in other parts of the country, armed forces personnel also make huge contributions to many voluntary organisations. It is important that we remember that, when the original armed forces community covenant for Moray was signed in 2012, that was when we welcomed the Army to Kinloss barracks. As a sign of our commitment in Moray—again, it would happen in Northern Ireland—that was re-signed in October 2016. It is important to quote the words that were said by the then convenor of Moray Council at that time, because it sums up what the armed forces covenant means in Moray, Scotland and across every part of the United Kingdom. At that signing ceremony, he said:
“This is an auspicious day for Moray. Senior representatives from all the public sectors in Moray and the military have come together to declare our continued support for the close ties and friendship between the armed forces at our two bases and the communities… The armed forces covenant is tangible proof of how our armed forces and everyone in Moray are all part of the same community, helping and supporting each other.”
That is what we want in every part of the United Kingdom.
The bonds that link our service communities in Moray with the wider area have always been strong, but the armed forces covenant has strengthened them even further. That is why I support the motion tabled by the DUP today. It is right that we recognise the valuable contribution to our armed forces of the men and women from Northern Ireland, including some of the best recruited reserve units in the UK. The final words of the motion are the most important: that this House
“reaffirms its commitment to ensure that the Armed Forces Covenant”—
which we enjoy in Moray and in Scotland—
“is fully implemented in Northern Ireland.”

David Simpson: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). His assessment was very interesting, and I was glad when he managed to get Northern Ireland into his speech, even though he had to get some help from the SNP. Everybody has their problems.
Our present day Government have a duty of care, and of course admiration, for each and every member of Her Majesty’s armed forces. Within their remit, it is vital that care and support is given to those who continue to live with the scars and the pains of bygone conflicts. In Northern Ireland, of course, we are all too aware of the pains of battle and what members of the armed forces faced during the years of struggle against the republican army. The military covenant is a real and genuine opportunity for the Government to show their gratitude to all who fought for the cause. Our nation has a moral obligation of support to our military members, and I am proud to say that right across the United Kingdom, people are continuing to fulfil that obligation.
In my constituency of Upper Bann, we had many losses over the years. From the 11th Battalion that was stationed in the constituency, we lost 16 soldiers. The Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment lost somewhere in the region of 205—the breakdown of that is 198 UDR and seven RIR—and 66 or 67 former members were killed, I think. In Northern Ireland 722 soldiers were killed by terrorists. Of course, on top of that we have members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and other forces. Some 6,116 were wounded. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) pointed out, some 300,000 soldiers served over that period in Northern Ireland.
The House can understand in just how much affection the people of Northern Ireland and the people on these Northern Ireland Benches hold our Crown forces today. Over the many years of troubles in Northern Ireland, the men and women of Ulster were never found wanting when it came to donning the uniform of the Crown forces. They knew duty had to be done, and they did it to defend the whole of the United Kingdom, right across the United Kingdom including, of course, Northern Ireland, with the troubles, but also even further afield, into Afghanistan and Iraq, where many were traumatised over the years.
Let me remind the House that there are Members of Parliament who disregard this covenant and have absolutely no desire to see its full implementation in Northern Ireland. Despite their objection, Sinn Féin cannot build the courage to stand before us in this Chamber and explain exactly why. That attitude fails to represent the voices of constituents who support the covenant and it fails to fulfil the overall obligation that we have to support our servicemen and women.
One key area of the covenant that I want to draw attention to is the importance of transition. I am sure that other hon. Members will touch on it; some have already done so. I have no doubt that this House recognises that the transition from service back into civilian life is a process that can often pose mental barriers for both the serviceman or woman and their family. Support for mental health care patients is a key issue that I have sought to address in my constituency of Upper Bann.
It never ceases to disturb me when I hear some of the stories of those who are struggling with mental illness. Across Northern Ireland, we face ever increasing numbers of mental health cases, and our healthcare professionals and support organisations are struggling to meet the demand, as we heard earlier. However, an ever greater concern is the many patients who think they can deal with their mental health problems and attempt to provide their own remedy of recovery. As we all know, this can often lead to dangerous, harrowing and tragic circumstances.
Many of our heroes will finish their service without physical injury or long-term damage, but in the months and years ahead, the scars and reality of battle can so often return with even greater effect. If fully implemented, the covenant would provide the training, education, healthcare referrals and appropriate career support for all those going through that transition period.
In closing, and on behalf of my constituents in Upper Bann, I re-emphasise my support for the full implementation of the armed forces covenant. I appeal to the Government to honour their commitment of care  to the servicemen and women who have given so much for this nation. It was mentioned that about 90% of the covenant is implemented. It has not been implemented in full in Northern Ireland as it has been in the rest of the United Kingdom. There is a point of principle here. Why are the servicemen and women who have sacrificed so much over the years in Northern Ireland being discriminated against, as British citizens, when every other part of the United Kingdom has the armed forces covenant? I hope and trust that in the not-too-distant future we will see it implemented in full.

Paul Girvan: It is a great privilege to speak this afternoon on a motion brought forward by my party. I feel honoured to do so, but we must also remember that, as has already been stated, 763 members of the military lost their lives during Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. More than 300 members of the RUC also lost their lives, with 6,116 injured—that is, physical injuries, never mind the tens of thousands suffering from mental illness that has occurred because of what they went through, along with their families, who probably suffer equally.
As has been stated, the difficulty we have in Northern Ireland is that there are those who oppose the full implementation of the armed forces covenant. They are not just the enemies of Northern Ireland, but the enemies of Great Britain. They are the people who would rejoice in and commemorate the killings, 30 years ago this month, of two soldiers, Corporals David Howes and Derek Wood, by the IRA during a campaign to do with the hunger strikes. That was a marked point in the history of Northern Ireland. The same people who would condone those people do not seem to recognise that those who were killed in Gibraltar got—I will use the term—their just deserts. Those who were there as enemies of the state were taken out by those who deemed that they there to create havoc. I can tell you, those are the enemies of Ulster.
There are families who have not been recognised, nor had the opportunity to access services, not just in housing but in healthcare and everything else. Many areas need full implementation, and one of them relates to vacant property. Many men went away as reservists, serving their Queen and country in Afghanistan and Iraq, and still had to pay rates on the properties that they occupied. That is not the case in the rest of the United Kingdom. Those areas need to be brought in line.
I do not believe that we as a country go far enough even in recognising our military. When I am in the United States, I see with pride the way they treat their military and those who have served their country. They learned their lesson after the Vietnam war, when men came back and were treated as outcasts. We as a country need to learn from what has happened in the United States. People there have turned a corner; they recognise their military. They make it evident that they appreciate what the military have done for their country. Military personnel do not go to the back of the line; they come to the front.
It is vital that we do not put these people to the back of the line. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) said, those  who are waiting on medical treatment and have to come across to the United Kingdom for treatment because of their injuries are not getting preferential treatment. I have a friend who lost both his legs in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, when he has to come over for treatment, he has to pay for his journey across. That needs to be looked at. As a country, we should be proud to go the second mile. We should not just state that we have a military covenant, but should go the second mile and give the military preferential treatment.
I disagree with what some people are saying, because section 75 of the Act implementing the Belfast agreement was to protect minorities. An amendment was made to it that includes the word “Travellers”—I stand to be corrected, but I believe that Travellers get a special mention in section 75. Lord Ashcroft did a review into the military in 2014, and I want to see the military and those who served within our security forces in Northern Ireland get the same recognition, with the same amendment made for them.
I see the House as widely united on this issue. It is great to see that we have brought a little bit of civility between the SNP and the Conservatives. Let us see if we can foster that and move it forward. I am probably not speaking to the converted, but we will try our best. It is great to see that our motion has the support of the House. Let us bring forward in Northern Ireland a full implementation of the armed forces covenant.

Emma Little Pengelly: I rise to support the motion and am very grateful for the opportunity to do so. I welcome the fact that the Democratic Unionist party leader, the right hon. Arlene Foster, has been able to join us to observe the debate.

Steve Pound: She’s just leaving!

Emma Little Pengelly: I think I have literally chased her away, unfortunately.
Northern Ireland, as a number of Members across the House have outlined, has a long and proud record of service in our British armed forces. I wish to add my voice to all those in the Chamber who have paid tribute to that service and sacrifice by so many. Indeed, not only Northern Ireland but pre-partition Ireland had a very proud record of those who served in our British armed forces from across both communities.
In my maiden speech, I referred to one of those men: my own great-grandfather, James Sandford, who, coming from pre-partition Ireland, fought at not only the Somme but Messines and was injured in Ypres—shot in the chest—and survived. I also would like to refer to my grandfather, Joseph Little, who served during world war two and was one of the men evacuated off the beaches at Dunkirk.
I mention those details first because I am incredibly proud of my family history and my grandfather and great-grandfather and all those who served, and secondly because it took me until this stage in my life to take a look into the details of my ancestors’ service. It is incredibly important for not only my generation but younger generations to take time to look into their family histories and learn about the incredible service that these people put in to defend our democracy and the great United Kingdom over the years.
I understand that, as has already been mentioned, Northern Ireland has the highest number of soldiers per head of population in any part of the United Kingdom. We contribute disproportionately to the British armed forces, and I am incredibly proud of that. It is not just about the money raised in the poppy appeal and the incredible things that people do on the ground to raise that money, it is about that disproportionate contribution to the armed forces. We are very proud of that fact at all levels across Northern Ireland.
In our work on the armed forces covenant, we have estimated that the combination of the higher proportional contribution to the British armed forces with Operation Banner, the presence of security forces in Northern Ireland and recruitment to the UDR, including the part-time UDR, means that approximately a third of all people in Northern Ireland had served in some capacity, were an immediate family member of somebody who had served or were a grandparent or grandchild of somebody who had served. That is an incredible statistic when we consider that Northern Ireland is still a divided society, where the vast majority of the volunteers—those who go into the reserves or the armed forces—are from one side of the community, although I welcome the fact that that is changing and we are seeing interest from both sides.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: My hon. Friend provides me with an opportunity to recall a visit I made to Camp Bastion in Helmand province in Afghanistan—we were visiting the First Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment, which was on operational deployment. I met soldiers from Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Dublin who were serving in our armed forces. I have to say that they had the Irish tricolour on display alongside the Ulster banner, demonstrating that people from both traditions serve in the UK armed forces, which we very much welcome.

Emma Little Pengelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
In my constituency of Belfast South, not only do we have many people who have served and continue to serve, but two units of the reserves are based there: on Sunnyside Street, there is a unit of the Army Medical Services—253 (North Irish) Medical Regiment—and on Hospital Road in Hydebank we have A Squadron of the Army Medical Services, 204 (North Irish) Field Hospital. I pay tribute to all the reserves who serve in that way. I know that many of them have incredibly stressful and busy full-time jobs, but they still find the time to join the reserves and to serve, providing the incredibly valuable expertise in the medical field that, sadly, is so necessary at times. It is an incredible thing that they do, and I pay tribute to them.
I want to focus on the outstanding issue of the application and implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. Many in this House are fully aware of the particular challenges, which have been discussed many times, facing our armed forces personnel not only when they are serving but particularly when they leave the armed forces. That is of course the same for those in Northern Ireland, but I want to pick up on two issues: the educational challenges facing the families of serving armed forces personnel, particularly their children; and mental health.
In Northern Ireland, as in the NHS across the UK, services are under huge pressure. We all know why, and we have heard many of the reasons for that. Sadly, however, in Northern Ireland we have had decades of historical underfunding, particularly for mental health services. Yet along with that historical underfunding, we have particularly high and growing levels of mental health needs. Indeed, I understand that we have the highest levels of mental health challenges and needs across the UK.
We have examined the challenges facing Northern Ireland, and we know that some groups are proportionally more likely to face mental health challenges during their lifetime. They include people who experience poverty, particularly transgenerational poverty, and young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. In addition—this is particular to Northern Ireland—there are the victims of the troubles and those who serve in the armed forces. The point I am trying to put across is that mental health is a particular challenge for Northern Ireland because we have higher numbers in both those categories.
In relation to victims and survivors, some of the areas that suffered most acutely during the troubles were urban, built-up areas. The constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) had the highest number of shootings and murders during the troubles. A huge number of people were impacted by that. We know from the evidence that people who lived in close proximity to those things, or who were directly impacted by them because they or a family member was the victim of violence, tend to have significantly higher levels of mental illness. There is a need to do more for victims of the conflict, and we are looking at that.
Connected to that, many of the victims were people who served in the armed forces. As my colleagues have outlined, a significant percentage of the victims served in the likes of the part-time RUC, the RUC, the part-time UDR and the British armed forces. Although we try to deal with some of that in Northern Ireland through our victims and survivors provision, we need much higher levels of mental health provision because of our armed forces personnel.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the reference she made to my constituency, the legacy of the troubles and the service of so many veterans over the years. One reason why we have such high rates of mental health problems and suicide in Belfast, and north Belfast in particular, is the legacy of the troubles and the service of so many and what they have gone through. I am very grateful to her for highlighting that issue.

Emma Little Pengelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
The higher levels of victims and armed forces personnel in Northern Ireland put particular pressure on our services, in particular the NHS in Northern Ireland, which in turn has an even greater detrimental impact on soldiers who are just coming out of the armed forces now, who are trying to cope with a range of challenges from depression right through to post-traumatic stress disorder. A number of pieces of research have been commissioned that indicate that the incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder is considerably higher in Northern  Ireland and that the rate of those who suffer from it is much higher among those who served in the troubles or who have recently left the armed forces. That is incredibly challenging for our health service to deal with.
I also want to touch on education. I want to pick up on how the lack of the full implementation of the armed forces covenant has as detrimental impact in Northern Ireland. I was in the Northern Ireland Assembly before I came to this place, where I created and chaired the all-party group on tackling educational underachievement. One category we looked at that faced particular challenges was the children of serving armed forces personnel or those who had recently left the armed forces. That was due to a number of factors, such as the frequency of moves between different schools and young people coming into school as a late starter or late restarter.
That is why I want to make reference to the comments of the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I care deeply about trying to make sure that those young people get full support, along with a number of other categories, such as young people on free school meals. It was absolutely clear from the research that those young people suffered disadvantage. In spite of that evidence, I could not get Sinn Féin to agree to implement the armed forces covenant and take action on these matters. The shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred to political point scoring. I do not say things to score political points, but I will always stand up and call out those who are in the wrong. It was absolutely wrong for Sinn Féin to refuse to implement the armed forces covenant at Executive level and to refuse to implement the community covenant at local council level where it has the power to veto. We need to be absolutely accurate about this, because that is exactly what is happening. Some Departments and agencies are clearly indicating that they are going ahead with implementation and are trying to support people in recognition of the objective needs of our armed forces personnel, but setting a policy of the formal adoption of the armed forces covenant would send a clear message across all levels of government.
As I indicated earlier, I had the privilege of working as a special adviser at the heart of government for almost 10 years. I sat on many cross-departmental and cross-agency boards, project boards and programme boards, looking at the development and implementation of policy. The biggest barrier to the effective implementation of policy and the effective dealing with identified problems was the lack of a clear policy on a top-down basis.

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend is making a very eloquent and powerful speech. Would it not be incumbent on the shadow Secretary of State to correct the record when he said that the armed forces covenant had been adopted in Northern Ireland? He did not respond to that point earlier and it would be good if it was put on the record.

Emma Little Pengelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope the shadow Secretary of State will take that opportunity, having accused anybody who has tried to stand up, and say very clearly, “I was there, I have had those conversations.” This is not about attacking Sinn Féin. This is not about political point  scoring. This is about calling people out. It is a fact that we could not get it implemented at Executive level, so it was never formally adopted. Where individual Departments, individuals or agencies wanted to implement it, they did so, but there was no broad adopted policy to ensure that it happened. There was no accountability in relation to that.
Another point worth mentioning briefly relates to the community covenant. Again, this is a fact and I ask the shadow Secretary of State to take a look at it. Where there is a Sinn Féin-dominated council, Sinn Féin refuses to adopt the community covenant. That means there is a differential in terms of impact. There is a variation in the policy set to officials and others who implement policy.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady is addressing the House with considerable eloquence, but I express the cautious optimism that she is approaching her peroration.

Emma Little Pengelly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am indeed.
In conclusion, despite what we have heard about the good work by third sector organisations, some councils and some Departments, clear policy needs to be set down at all levels. That has not happened and we want it to happen. We will continue to ask the Government to intervene to make sure that there is the full adoption of the armed forces covenant as soon as possible, so that no matter where our armed forces personnel live across the United Kingdom, they can receive the full protections and support they need.

Jamie Stone: I have listened to the debate with great interest. I compliment the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on a most interesting opening speech.
I hope I will not try the patience of Ulster Members by talking about Northern Ireland, but, as I have told Members before, my wife comes from the city of Armagh, very near the border with the Republic. We were married in the darkest days of the troubles. Sadly, the thump of bombs and the crack of high velocity weapons is, even as a highlander, no strange sound. A number of friends of my wife’s family were killed in the troubles and both her brothers, as I have told this Chamber before, served in the UDR. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) talked about shining a torch under the car to check for a bomb. That brought back a memory of asking one of my brothers-in-law what on earth he was doing as he did just that and he replied, “Looking for a bomb.” When sitting in the passenger seat beside a man like that and he turns the engine on—I actually put my fingers in my ears, because I was not sure whether I was about to meet my maker. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) talked about the strain and that is exactly what it was all about. It was tough going. These were brave guys and girls who did their bit for their country.
Just to lighten up slightly, let me share two anecdotes. First, I remember when as a foolhardy young married man, I went exploring into south Armagh, which was bandit country, and inevitably, I got lost. Very near the County Monaghan border with the Republic, I remember  noticing something lying beside the road—this wee lane, in fact—and I got out and examined it. It was a circular disc of aluminium with spikes coming out of it. I then realised that it was the bottom of what had obviously been a practice churn bomb that had been exploded in a remote part of County Armagh.
Again, perhaps for the amusement of the House, I will regale hon. Members with a tale about me and three other young people who were travelling from Armagh city to Omagh in County Tyrone on our way to a party. We were pulled up and stopped by a vehicle checkpoint, and an armed patrol of the UDR asked us to get out of the car. When I did, there were astonished looks for a start, and then they questioned me very closely about what on earth I thought I was. The trouble was that we were on our way to a fancy dress party in Omagh, and I was dressed—believe it or not—in tights and a large hessian sack as a haggis. That may or may not be in the annals of the deeds of the UDR.
The point I am making is simply that I knew the six counties of Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles. Today, I know Northern Ireland just as well, because my wife and I go there very frequently. What I see today is so different. I see the centre of Armagh city booming. I see Enniskillen—I am quite struck by this—in Fermanagh as a community that is really thriving. I can see all the shops doing well. I wish to goodness that some of our town centres in Scotland were doing as well as that, but that is for another debate on another day.
Of course, I give the armed forces absolute credit for what they did. It was a proud record. The point has been made about not forgetting the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and all those whose lives were endangered during that time. My concluding point is that we have peace today, so in addition to the armed forces, we should recognise the contribution and the courage of those on both sides of the divide who brought about that peace process. Lastly, I was married two miles from the border with the Republic—I know all about hard and soft borders.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to do the winding-up speech in this debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on setting the scene so well and on reminding us of the 300,000 people who have served in uniform since 1969. He also reminded us—we need reminding sometimes—that those people from Northern Ireland have served in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the world, so it is not just in Northern Ireland. He also mentioned post-traumatic stress disorder and the fact that the very high levels are much due to the 30 years of the troubles. He spoke about the need for veterans’ mental health and psychological problems to be addressed. The Royal Irish Regiment aftercare service also needs to be extended. He referred to the opportunities—equal opportunities and better opportunities—in housing, for victims and in education, health and employment, and he asked the Minister about the Government’s report and the appointment of a champion for Northern Ireland. We look forward to his answer.
The Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. and gallant Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), is still a reservist and is still serving in  uniform. He is still fit enough to do so—I am afraid I am not, by the way—and it is good to know that he is totally committed to the armed forces. I gently remind him of my question from November 2016, when I referred to the armed forces covenant. He replied that 93% of the covenant was in place in Northern Ireland, but we need to see 100%. He also referred to the LIBOR funding and the good projects that come from that.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith)—I am pleased that he is in his place—referred to the armed forces covenant and the support that he said he was giving for the military covenant. I remind him—I say this very gently and kindly to him—that we are not terribly happy about the comments that he made in our debate. I remind him that the former shadow Secretary of State certainly understood the issues relating to our commitment to the armed forces in Northern Ireland and the need for a full commitment. The next time he meets Sinn Féin, perhaps he will report back to the House and tell us exactly their thoughts on the need to have the armed forces covenant in place and fully part of what we are about. If he has time, he might also like to come and hear our point of view—I am not aware he has met the DUP parliamentary team in Westminster—and the quicker the better.

Owen Smith: I have, of course, met DUP Members, and I would be happy to do so again on any occasion the hon. Gentleman chooses. On the implementation issue, the reality is that the armed forces covenant does apply in Northern Ireland. As I said, there are some issues with implementation, but the semantic point that I think his colleagues were trying to make was that it was not fully endorsed by the Executive, for obvious reasons.

Jim Shannon: It is not about endorsement; it is about adoption and putting it 100% in place. That is what we want. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps someday he will appreciate and understand what we are about.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I respect the shadow Secretary of State and look forward to meeting him to discuss this issue, but there is nothing semantic about a veteran in my constituency who cannot travel for vital treatment because the Department in Northern Ireland will not fund his travel. That is not a semantic point; it is reality.

Jim Shannon: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Again, perhaps the shadow Secretary of State will grasp the cold reality at some stage.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) referred to the service of everyone in Northern Ireland, whether in an Army uniform, in a police uniform or in the prison service, and we thank him for that—I showed him a text earlier from one of my constituents commending him for doing so. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) found it took an Ulsterman to win her heart. We are pleased that that happened.

Carol Monaghan: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he was a rich Ulsterman?

Jim Shannon: He was rich the day he married the hon. Lady. That is what riches are—not money—but that is by the by. We thank her for her comments. She  clearly outlined local councils’ reluctance in Northern Ireland to fully commit to and implement the military covenant. We are very aware of that, and she has quickly become aware of it as well. She referred to the transition of policing initiative and the principle that there be no disadvantage to service personnel.
The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) mentioned that councils in Scotland had brought in the military covenant—so the job’s done—and asked why the Northern Ireland councils could not support each other, as should be the case across all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) referred to the scars. Sometimes we need to think for a minute sometimes about the scars, the pain and the hurt there has been. He expressed that extremely well in reminding us of the nation’s moral obligation towards those who sacrificed so much for all in the community. He also mentioned how Sinn Féin had disregarded this Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) mentioned how proud he was to stand up for veterans and how his own family had been part of that. He also reminded us of the commitment in the US of A to veterans and of those who have lost limbs and sustained life-changing injuries. We have been reminded today of what that means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) mentioned how many of her family members had committed themselves in uniform to liberty and freedom and how incredibly proud she was of the armed forces. She also told us that one third of people in Northern Ireland had either served or had family members who had served. It is good to remember that sometimes. The Army units in her constituency remind us not only of the commitment of the reservists, but of that of the NHS whose personnel are allowed to serve in the reserve forces. We should never forget that.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) had the good fortune to marry a girl from County Armagh.

Jamie Stone: This particular girl was not rich.

Jim Shannon: She was rich on the day she married the hon. Gentleman. That is the important thing.
I am very conscious of the timescale, Mr Speaker, and I am trying hard to stick to it. I must declare an interest, having served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for three years and in the Territorial Army for eleven and a half. I enjoyed every minute of my time as a part-time soldier.
My party has raised this issue before in the House, and it is of such grave importance to us that we will continue to raise it here until the contribution of our service personnel is recognised and respected in Northern Ireland in the same way as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We in Northern Ireland should have the same arrangement as Wales, Scotland and England. No matter what has been said in Europe, we are an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My  vote in this place is equal to that of every other Member, whether that Member is from Glasgow, Cardiff or London.
We are all equal here. We are all entitled to the same remuneration for our jobs. We are all entitled to the same support, including the support that is available to our families and our dependants. That is a given. Can you imagine the furore, Mr Speaker—I know it would annoy all of us here—if IT support, Library support and all the other support in the House were offered only to mainland MPs? Would we be mad? Of course we would. Can you imagine what would happen if we told the people of Brighton that the percentage of their housing benefit was different from the percentage paid in Bristol? There would be riots on the streets. We know all about riots in Northern Ireland, but I am sure that people in Bristol or Brighton would go mad.
Please will someone tell me why anyone thinks that it can be OK for there to be an armed forces covenant on the UK mainland and not in Northern Ireland? There is something seriously wrong with that. Is the sacrifice made by those in Northern Ireland not the same? Are their lives not worth as much? Are their families not deserving of support and care? Does the postcode lottery extend to serving soldiers and veterans from Northern Ireland? There is not one person here who could or should believe that, yet this is where we stand—still, after too many years of discussing the issue.
We are coming away from Europe, and it is hard. It is a slog, because we have the audacity to say that we wish to regain our sovereignty and make decisions for our people, as we are elected to do, instead of being financially taken advantage of by Europe and given little in return. Even in this, however, we do not have our own sovereignty. We are being held to ransom by members of a minority party who do not give the House the respect that it deserves by sitting in the Chamber. They do not take part in our debates, they do not take part in Committees, and they do not ask any questions. They do not take any role in this House . In return, instead of saying. “If you refuse to speak here, you cannot be heard”, we are being held to ransom, and they can do what they want.
I want to put on record my thanks to charities such as Beyond the Battlefield and the Royal British Legion. I think that if the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), visits my constituency, as other Members have, he will find that members of the Royal British Legion there are most perturbed about the armed forces covenant. I am sure that some day he will have an opportunity to talk to them face to face, and to listen to their point of view. Then there is SSAFA, in aid of which I organise a coffee morning every year. We have raised about £25,000 over the years for which I have been a Member of Parliament. A number of other charities are doing great work as well.
Education, health and roads in Northern Ireland are suffering because of the inability of Sinn Féin to maintain the political process in Northern Ireland. My constituency has a long and proud service history, with serving soldiers and veterans alike coming from Strangford. They are being disrespected and disregarded because of an abstentionist party. The members of that party cry for justice, but it is clear that their thirst is for vengeance against anyone who has worn a uniform or is perceived to be the enemy. They cry for openness and transparency while attempting to have convictions overturned, and  include the courts in their attempted rewriting of factual history. They cry and they cry and they cry, but I believe that in Northern Ireland we must move forward.
We are in this Chamber. We are working for the people. We are using our voices for the people of Strangford and the people in Northern Ireland as a whole. I ask the Secretary of State to hear the people of Northern Ireland, to implement the covenant, and to do it with immediate effect. I ask him to take control of Northern Ireland, and to consider our sincere request for our people to be heard. I ask him not to sit still, but to make decisions for all of us.
I hope I am within the time limit that you wanted, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Thank you. It is the time limit that I got. We are most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Tobias Ellwood: Talking of time limits, Mr Speaker, it is 6.59 pm now, and I am delighted to have until 8.4 pm to conclude this debate. I pay tribute to all who have spoken, and specifically to the DUP for calling this important motion and focusing on something that is important both to me personally and the Government. I declare an interest, in that I have served as a regular in Her Majesty’s armed forces—indeed, in Northern Ireland as well—and I serve as a reservist as a lieutenant colonel now.
The covenant is about our commitment, indeed our obligation, as a grateful nation to those who have served for the sacrifices they have made. We as a nation, a Government and a Parliament put them in a place of danger; we ask them to do things that arguably others in society do not do. Therefore, there is not only gratitude, but a determination to show our thanks by making sure that we look after them when they decide for that final time to slide the uniform back across to the quartermaster and move into civilian street.
It is important to say that the absolute majority serve well, transition well and adapt back into civilian society well; I make that point because this is a sensitive issue and people could get the impression from some of the debates we have that, were they to serve, they would perhaps come out damaged or frail, and that is not the case. I hope the whole House agrees that those who have served and are serving are better for it, and the nation is better for their service and what they can contribute once they have completed their service. Having said that, some, through no fault of their own, experience difficulties, and that is where the covenant comes in: to make sure we can provide that help, whether on employment, housing or debt. These are the aspects of the covenant that we need to make sure work in every part of the UK.
The covenant is not just about the obligations of the MOD. That is why the veterans board was created to bring together those who have responsibility in other areas of Government across Whitehall, and to make sure they are held to account, so that when problems arise from the issues raised today, we know where to turn—to the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education or the devolved Administrations —to say, “What are you doing to improve what’s going on?”
I made a very interesting Remembrance Sunday visit to Belfast, and I thank all involved in that for helping me to better understand what is actually happening there, and to meet the various characters in 38 Brigade and hear what is happening today, which is very different from when I served myself. We also spent some time focusing on the practical application of the covenant, and we must recognise that its application is different in Northern Ireland, where it is a sensitive issue due to the unique political circumstances there.
However, much has changed since the last time we debated this subject four years ago. The Northern Ireland veterans support office is now established, up and running and working with the charitable sector, Cobseo and the public sector. We also have a veterans champion in each of the 11 authorities—again, working well—and we have seen significant funding in various aspects of support for the veterans community: for example, around half a million pounds to Combat Stress, which is specifically focused on its work in Northern Ireland, and £600,000 to Belfast Somme Nursing Home as well.
The covenant is also about employment; it is about making sure that there is that transition, a point made by Members across the Chamber today. We have the Defence Relationship Management organisation, which takes those who have chosen to put their hand up and say, “I am departing the armed forces,” through a journey, which begins up to a year and sometimes two years before the end of their service through to two years beyond their service, to make sure they are on their feet.
Again, I stress the case that about 90% of those who leave the armed forces—about 15,000 a year—are back in education or in employment within six months of leaving. But we must all recognise that the help is not always needed straight after they have left, but is sometimes needed many years after. The point that has been made again and again is that if someone is suffering from PTSD or another mental health issue, it can incubate and be there for a number of years, and sometimes the umbilical cord of support from the armed forces is stretched or almost broken. We have seen cases across the country of people coming forward to ask for help from medical services without even declaring that they are a veteran, despite that being something that a GP may need to be aware of. It is very important that we address that better, and we recognise the difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland.
Employment is critical for recognising the value of somebody who has served in the armed forces, with their leadership, commitment, teamwork, grit, tenacity and determination. Who would not want to employ somebody who has worked in the armed forces and has so much to offer? That is why I am pleased that the armed forces covenant is being signed by many big businesses, including in Northern Ireland, such as Caterpillar, Asda and Royal Mail. We are also working with 700 smaller businesses to ensure that there is engagement and a track for people when they leave the armed forces to see where their skills can be transferred.
In conclusion, the covenant is a journey. We created it, we signed it and we have made the commitment, but there is much more work to do, not just in Northern Ireland but across the country. Because of my service and the passion that the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have, we want to make this work. We have to make  it work. I thank the Democratic Unionist party for bringing this debate to the House today. The duty of debt that we owe is shared across the House, and this is the beginning of a journey. If I can make a promise to the DUP, I would be more than delighted to visit Northern Ireland again in the very near future to look in detail at some of the points made by DUP Members today, so that we can move things another notch further.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the valuable contribution made by men and women from Northern Ireland to our armed forces, including some of the best recruited Reserve Units in the UK and reaffirms its commitment to ensure that the Armed Forces Covenant is fully implemented in Northern Ireland.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

John Bercow: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 5 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Pensions

That the draft Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.
That the draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.

Criminal Law

That the draft Electronic Commerce Directive (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION (COMMITTEES)

Ordered,
That the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2018 (S.I., 2018, No.10) be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Rebecca Harris.)

HMRC Staff: Dudley

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Ian Austin: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise in the House the threat to 250 jobs of hard-working and highly skilled civil servants employed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs at the Waterfront offices in Dudley. I am also grateful for the brilliant work done by the local representative of the Public and Commercial Services Union, Tim Crumpton, and to constituents of mine who work at the centre for speaking to me about this matter. I congratulate them on their campaign to save the jobs and to keep the staff working in our community.
These are jobs that neither the staff themselves nor the wider community in Dudley can afford to lose, and that is why I am asking Ministers to look again at this decision. We want them to keep the Brierley Hill offices open and ensure that the highly skilled HMRC staff continue to work for the Government, serving the public. As Members will know, HMRC announced a radical office closure programme in November 2015, reducing the number of offices to just 13, spread across the UK.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He mentions the highly skilled employees. With the introduction of universal credit and the additional work of reviewing every former disability living allowance and current personal independence payment claim, does he agree that to dismiss highly trained staff, who are capable of working between Departments and easing the load, is folly and must be reconsidered?

Ian Austin: I completely agree. It is not party political knockabout to say that the introduction of universal credit is clearly not going according to plan. It has obviously hit some wrinkles along the road—that is a charitable way of putting it—and it is an odd decision to get rid of staff when we do not know how difficult it is going to be to properly introduce the new benefit.
The new regional centre for the west midlands will be in Birmingham. That led to the closure of the Walsall office in 2016, while the Worcester office is due to close next year and the Wolverhampton, Coventry and Solihull offices are due to close in 2020 or 2021.

Jim Cunningham: I held a public meeting in Coventry at the end of January. There is a lot of concern because 300 jobs will go from the local tax office and people will either have to travel to Birmingham, or use a phone line, which is not always adequate for their needs. Does my hon. Friend agree that a halt should be called to this?

Ian Austin: My hon. Friend is completely right. Everybody knows how hard he fights for jobs in Coventry and that it cannot afford to lose those jobs, just like the Black country cannot afford to lose the ones in Dudley. The city council passed a motion unanimously, probably in no small part due to his campaigning.
It was announced that the Dudley office at the Waterfront and Merry Hill would be taken on by the Department for Work and Pensions, and that staff would transfer to   that Department; a small number of staff would have transferred to the Birmingham office. Staff at that office employed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to work on tax credits were told in 2015 that they would be transferred to the DWP to work on the introduction and implementation of universal credit. As recently as last October, they were told that they would remain at the Waterfront offices to work on the new benefit. Instead, at the end of January it was announced that the Government had changed their mind, that their jobs were at risk and that the office would close. That came as a huge shock to the hard-working, highly skilled and loyal staff. On the same day, DWP announced up to 150 job vacancies at the Waterfront site. Inquiries have been made and they are fixed-term appointments, although local discussions have revealed that they could become permanent. The announcement had little detail and more was promised, we were told, in April 2018.
It was originally envisaged that the Birmingham regional centre would have a capacity of about 3,200 full-time equivalent staff, but when the site of the Birmingham office was announced in October, that figure was reduced to 2,600. No official reason has been given for that, but sources are very clear that it is based on the high costs of premises in Birmingham. The figure of 2,600 did not include the Merry Hill staff, because they were due to go to DWP.
We have discussed the situation in Coventry, where hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), have been campaigning. The same is true in Wolverhampton, where MPs also want their HMRC office to stay open. It has 300 staff and the local council also supports the campaign. Discussions have opened with Andy Street, the West Midlands Mayor, based on the combined authority agreement, which was signed by the then Chancellor with all of the West Midlands combined authority councils, and which uniquely states that there should be a regional Government hub in Birmingham and sub-regional hubs elsewhere in the region.

Mike Wood: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on the closure of the offices in my constituency, which will affect many of his constituents. Does he agree that the success of the surge and rapid response team at the Waterfront demonstrates exactly the kind of modern capabilities that would add so much to delivering universal credit, and that the redeployment should be reconsidered, whether with DWP or with other bodies, to make use of the existing staff and skills at the Waterfront?

Ian Austin: The hon. Gentleman is completely right. I will make that point later. These are highly skilled, highly trained staff, who are very experienced in dealing with complex benefits. No better group of people could be employed for the introduction of universal credit. That is the case we are making to Ministers tonight and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is here to do so, too. I very much hope that Ministers will listen to and consider the argument over the next few weeks.
That is a really important point, because for staff in Merry Hill the closure will present grave difficulties. A high proportion of them have caring responsibilities which would make the journey to Birmingham impossible; I have spoken to mothers in exactly that position.  A number of the staff came from offices that closed in the 1990s, and the journeys would make such a move impossible or impractical for them. The recent closure of the office in Walsall left more than half the staff without jobs, and the closure in Worcester is affecting nine out of 10 staff, who now face voluntary or compulsory redundancy; the majority of those staff have caring responsibilities.
HMRC insists that 90% of staff will have a job in the centres, despite the fact that all the closures so far have resulted in much higher job losses. The loss of these skilled and hard-working staff is very risky and it contradicts recommendations made by Committees of this House, which have called for a halt to the office closure process. Staff in Merry Hill believe that the DWP explanation that it has sufficient staff for universal credit to work properly flies in the face of all the current information we have about this complex new benefit’s introduction, as we heard a moment ago. Staff who work there are highly skilled: they have dealt with tax credits work since those were introduced, and they are helping with the changeover to UC from tax credits already. They were also stunned that the DWP vacancies were not even considered when the announcement was originally made.
Another point that I know will be of interest to the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) is that the office is in the middle of a recently announced enterprise zone, DY5, and the roles undertaken by HMRC staff completely fit into the Government’s vision for this enterprise zone. This brings me to my final point, which is about unemployment in Dudley.

Chris Stephens: I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. As the chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group, I wonder whether he could confirm that no economic impact assessment and no equality impact assessment has been carried out prior to these closures in Dudley?

Ian Austin: As far as I am aware, neither of those assessments has been carried out. That is another point the Minister should be considering this evening.
Unemployment in Dudley is already higher than the national average, and we cannot afford to lose another 250 jobs from the borough. It is important that civil service jobs are spread throughout the country, benefiting communities such as mine, instead of being centralised in London or major regional centres. The UK is already one of the most centralised countries in the world. As a result, investment and growth have been concentrated in the capital and stifled elsewhere. Extraordinarily, despite all the cuts, the proportion of the country’s civil servants located in London actually increased every year between 2010 and 2015. Even with deep cuts elsewhere in the country, there were 5,000 more civil servants in the capital in 2015 than there had been in 2013. Instead of closing offices in Black country communities such as the borough I represent, the Government should be moving civil servants and staff from non-departmental public bodies and quangos out of London, transferring jobs from the capital to the rest of the country, spreading wealth more fairly across the UK and contributing to the regeneration of communities in places such as Dudley. That would  improve policy making by getting central, regional and local government working more effectively together, bringing government closer to the people and ensuring that policy makers were better informed about what life is like in places that are often ignored by civil servants and politicians based in London. It would also save the Government money by getting staff out of expensive London property.
As I understand it, HMRC has announced that it will be moving 1,500 jobs out of London, so in the spirit of generosity for which we in the Black country are well known, may I tell the Minister that we would be very happy to provide a home for those 1,500 staff? I very much hope that he will consider moving those jobs out of London and to Dudley and the Black country.
Before I finish, I would like to ask some other specific questions. Staff in the office were told late last year that they would transfer to the DWP on 31 March 2022. Can the Minister confirm that it is still the plan that staff will remain in Dudley, working on tax credits, until that date? That would give time to see whether the DWP at Merry Hill can make some or all the fixed-term jobs permanent and offer them to staff there, and it would give time for staff to seek other work in the area and to be retrained. In addition, other DWP roles in local jobcentres would become available. That would not preclude staff who want to go to Birmingham from doing so, and it would offer other staff who work in Wolverhampton a stepping stone if their office does close, as many of them live in our area.
Will the Minister visit the offices with me and listen directly to the staff involved, or meet them here in London? Will he explain how this proposal reflects wider Government policy, given that Ministers recently designated the area as an enterprise zone? Finally, will he explain what assistance will be provided to staff who cannot transfer elsewhere or who do not get jobs elsewhere, to help them to obtain alternative employment if the proposed closure goes ahead?
The decision to close the Merry Hill office came as a huge shock to staff. Many of them will not be able to transfer and Dudley cannot afford to lose their jobs. It is my job to stand up for local people, which is why I secured this debate to demand that Ministers think again. These are hard-working and highly skilled public servants. They are very worried about their future and we need to secure their jobs. That is why we are here today, and I very much hope that Ministers will listen.

Mark Hendrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on securing this debate on an important subject. I thank the PCS trade union in Lancashire for bringing the situation in respect of HMRC staff in Lancashire to my attention. Since October 2017, approximately 200 staff at the Guild Tower in Preston have transferred to work on universal credit for the DWP, and in April this year, the next set of staff is due to transfer over, but for the past four to six weeks, rumours have been rife that the imminent transfer of staff will be the last, and that after that tranche has moved over the DWP will no longer need any staff for universal credit.
Let me explain the bigger picture. The original plan was for 4,000 HMRC staff throughout the country to be transferred to the DWP to work on universal credit. There are 600 HMRC staff in Preston who were not part of those plans. They were needed at the new regional centres in Manchester or Liverpool. By February this year, the 4,000 staff throughout the country had reduced to 2,000, with staff in Liverpool, Merry Hill—to which my hon. Friend referred—St Helens and Dudley told that they would not be transferring. Of the remaining 2,000 staff, between 1,400 and 1,500 are in Preston at the Unicentre and the Guild Tower, which have a combined 20 floors, with the rest in Dundee. So far, 200 staff have transferred, and rumours are that the 100 who will transfer next month may be the last to go. This would equate to the loss of between 1,700 and 1,800 jobs in Preston.
Under HMRC’s “Building our future” plans, all the existing HMRC offices in Preston either will transfer to the DWP or are scheduled to close. Although Preston was among the original 40 sites shortlisted for consideration as a regional centre, under the current plans there will be no HMRC presence there at all after 2022. That could mean thousands of staff facing either the prospect of moving to work at HMRC’s designated regional centres in the north-west, in Manchester and Liverpool, which are unlikely to be within reasonable daily travel distances for staff from Preston, or the prospect of mass redundancies.
Will the Minister please look again at the plans? It is unacceptable that between 1,700 and 1,800 jobs might disappear from Preston. The scale and size of the new regional centres should be reviewed, because huge numbers of jobs in Preston are clearly at risk because of the plans that are dispensing with many staff who the Government know will not transfer to Manchester or Liverpool because of the distances involved.

Mike Wood: I shall keep my comments very brief. As the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) has said, these proposals are particular and differ from many of the wider reorganisation proposals for HMRC. Some very specific plans were put in place—the workforce at HMRC in Merry Hill were consulted and told that staff would be transferred from the tax credits team to the Department for Work and Pensions to work on universal credit delivery. That was thought to be the position two months ago, but suddenly, out of the blue, the proposals changed. It came as a shock to HMRC staff based at the Waterfront and to their representatives—both those in the trade union movement and their elected representatives.
The hon. Gentleman set out some very good reasons why the Government should look again at how we can maintain and retain both the staff and the facilities at the Waterfront. The skills provided there are absolutely first class and would be a credit to any part of the civil service that could make use of them. As I mentioned earlier, the surge and rapid response team that has been operating out of the Waterfront—originally from HMRC and the passport service—has shown the adaptability of the teams that are based there. There is no doubt that the tax credit team could similarly transfer and provide a fantastic service, whether it is in conjunction with DWP, other parts of HMRC or Her Majesty’s Treasury.
The Waterfront is a growth area. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the DY5 enterprise zone that many of us worked so hard to secure. On top of that, we have the new tram links connecting to that enterprise zone, which—I almost said coincidentally, but it is almost tragically—is due to open at almost exactly the time when these jobs are scheduled to be taken away from the Waterfront.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to look again at both the content of these proposals and the timetable for them, to see whether the Government are doing absolutely everything they can to find the right way to make full use of the fantastic talent that we have at HMRC at the Waterfront, to give employees the certainty that they need, to retain the skills and experience that we need in the civil service, and to set an awful lot of minds at rest in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Dudley North.

Mel Stride: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on securing this important debate. I know that these are matters of particular concern to him, as they are to the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), who have also made contributions this evening. HMRC’s location strategy was the subject of a Backbench Business debate held in November last year, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to return to this important matter.
As the hon. Member for Dudley North pointed out, in November 2015 HMRC announced its location strategy as a crucial element of its work to create a modern, world-class tax authority—a key part of our long-term economic plan for national prosperity. Since 2010 we have made substantial investments, enabling HMRC to do more to tackle evasion, drive down avoidance and improve compliance.
HMRC is transforming into a leaner, more highly skilled operation, offering modern digital services. It is moving away from outdated systems of manual processing to become more flexible and technologically driven—changing the way it works and using today’s technology and IT to improve the services it delivers for its customers. These investments in technology mean that HMRC can tackle fraud, evasion and avoidance more effectively and that customer services have improved, with far lower wait times on helplines and new ways to get support, such as webchats.
Changes to HMRC’s office estate are an important part of this transformation process, moving it from a large, widely dispersed estate of offices across the UK, varying in size, to a considered network of significant, modern regional hubs. In November 2015, HMRC announced that over the following 10 years it would bring its employees together in 13 regional offices, all in locations where it already has a significant presence, as it does in Birmingham. The co-location of teams across HMRC will lead to increased collaboration and flexibility, allowing it to provide more effective and efficient services to the taxpayer, and it has put support in place to help its workforce through the changes.
In Birmingham, the regional centre will be situated in the heart of the city at 3 Arena Central. It will be home to 3,600 civil servants, with 2,650 HMRC staff moving  in from 13 offices around the west midlands region to undertake a wide range of key tax professional and operational delivery roles.
The first of HMRC’s regional centres opened in Croydon in July 2017 and construction is under way at the Birmingham site, along with further sites in Bristol, Cardiff, Belfast and Leeds. All those offices will be modern, environmentally friendly and located in the heart of the community. Most of them will be shared with other Government Departments, and all have been sized for the future needs of HMRC and the taxpayer.
In addition to the 13 regional centres, HMRC will keep seven transitional sites open across the UK for several years, where it will help retain key skills during the transition period, as well as five specialist sites for work that cannot be done elsewhere. For example, HMRC will retain Telford as a site for some of its specialist digital teams. By phasing the moves into its regional centres over a number of years and keeping sites open during the transition, HMRC will ensure that disruption to its business operations is minimised. The Birmingham regional centre will open in late 2020.
The overall programme to move to regional centres will deliver savings to the taxpayer of around £300 million up to 2025 and then annual cash savings of £74 million in 2025-26, rising to more than £90 million by 2028. It will also avoid costs of £75 million a year from 2021, when the current private finance initiative contact with Mapeley comes to an end.
It is important to stress that this is not just about cost savings and bricks and mortar. HMRC’s new office structure will allow people to develop more fulfilling careers. There will be a far wider variety of jobs and different career paths to senior roles, as a wider range of work will be based on single sites. These modern buildings will unquestionably deliver a better working environment and experience for HMRC’s workforce. Crucially, their city centre locations will also increase HMRC’s attractiveness as an employer, enabling it to recruit and retain the next generation of skilled professionals. That is particularly important given that a substantial proportion of its long-serving workforce are approaching retirement age.
HMRC is clear that it wants to do all it can to keep its people’s skills, knowledge and experience, and it has a policy of minimising any redundancies. The vast majority of HMRC employees are within reasonable daily travel of a regional centre, specialist site or transitional site, and that is deliberate: decisions on where to locate the regional centres were based on modelling of where existing staff are based. HMRC estimates that 90% of its workforce will be able to move to one of its regional centres or complete their career in their current office. For those currently based at the Waterfront offices, the travel time from Dudley to Birmingham city centre is between 35 and 55 minutes by car or train.
That said, HMRC recognises that individual employees have distinct personal circumstances, and not everyone will feel able to move to a regional centre, even where they might be reasonably close by. So it has put structured support in place—this is a point that the hon. Member for Dudley North asked about—to help those who can move and those who cannot. One year ahead of any move, everyone affected has the opportunity to discuss their personal circumstances with their manager and talk through any particular needs to be taken into  account when decisions are made or any help they need to make the move—for instance, help with additional travel costs for up to the first five years. It is a tried and tested process, with more than 10,000 such conversations held in HMRC over the last two years. There is also a range of support for those unable to make the move to a regional centre. HMRC runs a programme of training, workshops, webinars and coaching, which includes advice on CV writing and identifying transferrable skills. Since starting in the autumn, it has been offered to around 800 employees, and HMRC will continue to provide such support.
Let me turn to some specific questions that the hon. Member for Dudley North posed. An equality assessment was conducted prior to the location’s announcement in 2015, with a high-level summary published to staff at that time. HMRC continues to review those, and the issues in the west midlands are of course considered with the active input of representatives from the Brierley Hill office and the local Public and Commercial Services Union.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me an important question about the date to which staff not being transferred on the universal credit/DWP basis might expect to stay in place. Currently, HMRC expects there to be ongoing tax credits work in Brierley Hill until March 2021. At that point, the tax credits caseload is expected to have fully moved across to universal credit, so the tax credits work currently undertaken in Merry Hill will come to  an end. However, HMRC intends gradually to redeploy the skilled and experienced staff there to other work as the tax credits caseload decreases. HMRC will work with those staff to ensure that there is every opportunity to make a successful move into reallocated employment.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would be happy to meet him and some of the staff with whom he has been liaising. I would be more than happy to do that. Perhaps doing so in Westminster would be most appropriate, as the hon. Member for Preston and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South might wish to join him for those discussions—I would certainly be open to that.
Finally, the hon. Member for Dudley North asked about the support provided for those who might not, in the event, be able to make the move from Merry Hill to the new centre in the centre of Birmingham. As I have said, all staff will have a one-to-one discussion with their manager around a year in advance of any office move that affects them, to discuss their personal circumstances, establish whether they are within reasonable daily travel of the new office and discuss what support might be needed to enable them to move. For those who can move, there will be financial support towards the additional cost of their journey time for up to five years. HMRC is supporting those who cannot move by seeking redeployment opportunities for them in other Departments.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Political Parties, Northern Ireland

That the draft Transparency of Donations and Loans etc. (Northern Ireland Political Parties) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 23 November 2017, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 308, Noes 261.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Passports

That the draft Passport (Fees) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 317, Noes 258.

Question accordingly agreed to.